Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

NEW WRIT.

For the Borough of Kingston-upon-Hull (Central Division), in the room of Commander JOSEPH MONTAGUE KENWORTHY, commonly called Commander the Honourable JOSEPH MONTAGUE KENWORTHY (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Sir Robert Hutchison.]

CITY OF LONDON CHURCHES.

Colonel Sir VANSITTART BOWATER: I beg to present a petition from the users of the City Churches in the City of London against the Union of Benefices and Disposal of Churches (Metropolis) Measure, 1926. This petition is signed by Thomas Ellis, deputy, and 9,725 other actual users of the City Churches, and is in the following words:
We, the inhabitants of and daily workers in the City of London, being users of the parish churches and church yards of the City, regard with dismay the proposals contained in the Union of Benefices and Disposal of Churches (Metropolis) Measure now before your honourable House, proposing to give power to the Bishop of London to bring about the demolition of ancient City churches, and thus deprive your petitioners of the convenient facilities they at present enjoy for attendance at midday services and for private devotion, now so general throughout the City of London.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

ANTI-BRITISH BOYCOTT.

Mr. TREVELYAN: 2.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any settlement has been arrived at with the Canton Government to conclude the boycott of British trade at Hong King?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir Austen Chamberlain): As foreshadowed in the reply given on 28th September to the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Pethick-Lawrence), an announcement of the termination of the Hong Kong boycott appeared in the Canton Gazette of 10th October, when all pickets on the Hong Kong frontier were withdrawn and restrictions on the crossing to and fro of passengers and goods were abandoned. At the same time the strike examination shed at Canton was demolished. While a return to normal conditions can only be reached gradually, there has already been some improvement. The train service between Hong Kong and Canton has been resumed, steamer services are almost normal and Chinese dealers are restocking with British piece goods. There is still, however, considerable anti-British agitation and many dealers still hesitate to deal openly with British merchants, and the boycott organisation is carrying on a campaign for the perpetuation of the boycott.

Mr. LOOKER: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the boycott shows some signs of revival, both in Canton and Swatow, particularly in the refusal to handle cargo taken there by various British liners, and can he say what action he will take in the matter to protect British interests concerned?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I must ask my hon. Friend to give me notice of his question.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether this boycott was called off as a result of any definite understanding between the two Governments, or whether it was action by one side only?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I cannot say that it resulted from an understanding.

Mr. TREVELYAN: Then did the negotiations come to no conclusion?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: There were conversations between His Majesty's Consul-General and the local authorities, but I could not say that this was the subject of any agreement.

COTTON TEXTILES (IMPORT SURTAX).

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 7.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he
can state for the information of merchants exporting cotton textiles to China how many of the provinces have introduced the 2½ per cent. surtax; whether the British Government is advising British importers to submit to it; and what is the policy of the British Government at the present time on the subject of the proposed interim Chinese tariff?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: No provinces have introduced the 2½ per cent. surtax. The local administration at Canton has introduced production and consumption taxes at the rate of 2½ per cent. on ordinary goods and 5 per cent. on imported luxuries. The provincial authorities of Shantung have introduced a goods tax at the rate of 2 per cent.ad ralorem. Individual merchants are paying these taxes under protest, and protests have been made by the representatives of the Treaty Powers at Peking and at the ports affected. The consideration of the proposed interim Chinese tariff cannot be renewed until China is in a position to resume negotiations with the Powers.

WANHSIEN INCIDENT.

Mr. CLYNES: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish full papers on the Wanhsien incident; and whether it is intended to make any redress to the Chinese people for the loss of civilian lives?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I am not yet in receipt of full information about this incident, but I will, of course, consider the right hon. Gentleman's request for papers as soon as I am in a position to do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — TURKEY (VISIT TO WAR GRAVES).

Viscount SANDON: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why the Turkish authorities, on the very morning of the day when the St. Barnabas pilgrims were to land at Anzac and Suvla to visit the war graves, suddenly cancelled their permission and prevented the landing; whether the Government have made representations; and, if so, with what result?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: This incident has formed the subject of a full report from His Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Constantinople, who made strong representations to the Turkish authorities. His representations, however, have not yet led to any result, or explanation of their action.

Oral Answers to Questions — AFGHAN-SOVIET TREATY.

Viscount SANDON: 4.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has information as to the terms of the Afghan-Soviet Treaty; whether British-Indian interests are preserved; and whether the treaty has been registered with the League of Nations?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have received a translation of the Treaty signed on the 31st August from the British Minister at Kabul, to whom the Afghan Foreign Minister communicated the Persian text. I see no reason to suppose that the Treaty will have any prejudicial effect on British-Indian interests. So far as I know, it has not been registered with the League of Nations, and since neither party to it is a member of the League, it does not seem likely that it will be registered.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARABIA (ITALIAN TREATY).

Viscount SANDON: 5.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Italian Mission to Arabia last August has resulted in any treaty or understanding; if so, whether His Majesty's Government are aware of its terms; whether the League of Nations have been informed; and whether British interests are protected?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: Yes, Sir; a treaty of friendship and commerce between Italy and the Yemen was signed at Sanaa on the 2nd September, 1926, and its terms have been communicated by the Italian Government to His Majesty's Government. I am unaware whether they have also been communicated to the League of Nations. The treaty is essentially pacific and commercial in character; it contained nothing contrary to British interests.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA (BRITISH CLAIMS).

Mr. PRESTON: 6.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any progress has been made towards a settlement of the British financial claims against Russia, both State and private?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: The answer to this question is in the negative.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Russian Foreign Office have on innumerable occasions indicated that they would welcome a conference to settle all outstanding questions between the two countries?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: I have had a general statement to the effect that they would welcome negotiations for putting our relations on a better footing from the representatives of the Soviet in this country, and I have indicated to them the conditions precedent to successful negotiations.

Mr. TAYLOR: Could the right hon. Gentleman say what those conditions are?

Sir A. CHAMBERLAIN: First and foremost, that I should be able to give this House a guarantee that the one political condition which was embodied in the Trade Agreement would henceforth be kept.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

INSURED PERSONS.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 9.
asked the Minister of Labour if he can now state the number of persons who were insured against unemployment at the beginning of July, 1926?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland): The number of persons insured under the Unemployment Insurance Acts in Great Britain at the beginning of July, 1926, is estimated to be 11,773,700. This figure includes 123,700 persons insured wider the special schemes for the banking and insurance industries.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Could the right hon. Gentleman say whether that represents an increase or a decrease as compared with the previous year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Speaking from memory, I think it is an increase,
but in dealing with figures I like to verify them before I give a definite answer.

STATISTICS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 14.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed at the present time and the number for the same period last year?

Mr. R. MORRISON: 18.
asked the Minister of Labour the latest figures in his possession of the number of unemployed workpeople registered as wanting work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I will answer these questions together. The number registered at Employment Exchanges in Great Britain on 1st November, 1926, was 1,559,200, as compared with 1,207,612 at 2nd November, 1925. The figure for November, 1926, is exclusive of workpeople in the coal-mining industry who ceased work on account of the dispute.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Could the right hon. Gentleman say approximately how many people were unemployed who were not registered at Employment Exchanges?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: No.

Mr. TAYLOR: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the Government have any policy to provide work for this million and a half?

BENEFIT PAYMENTS.

Mr. THOMSON: 15.
also asked the Minister of Labour the number of persons unemployed receiving standard benefit and the number receiving extended benefit at the present time, and the corresponding figures for a year ago?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Statistics of the number of persons in receipt of standard and extended benefit respectively are not regularly collected. At the latest inquiry made on 15th March, 1926, it was found that 53.8 per cent. of the authorised claims to benefit current at that date were authorised for standard benefit and 46.2 per cent. for extended benefit, as compared with 52.4 per cent. for standard benefit and 47.6 per cent. for extended benefit at 18th May, 1925.

RELIEF SCHEMES.

Mr. THOMSON: 16.
asked the Minister of Labour the number of men employed on works instituted by local authorities and others under schemes sanctioned by the Unemployment Grants Committee; the total amount of expenditure involved; and the corresponding figures for a year ago?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The number of men employed on the 25th September, 1926, on schemes assisted by the Unemployment Grants Committee was 19,351 as compared with 32,170 men employed on the 26th September, 1925. The total estimated cost of schemes approved by the Committee during the 12 months ended 30th Steptember, 1926, was £11,912,145 as compared with £21,693,923 during the year ended 30th September, 1925.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why, with increased number of unemployed, the amount of the grants has been so considerably reduced?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The policy of the Government in regard to this matter was explained quite fully earlier in the year, and if the hon. Member will refer to that explanation he will see the conditions under which the Unemployment Grants Committee have considered this question.

SEAMEN (NEWCASTLE-ON-TYNE).

Mr. R. RICHARDSON (for Mr. CONNOLLY): asked the Minister of Labour if he is aware that unemployed seamen in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne area are compelled to sign the unemployed register at the Newcastle Central Exchange and not at the local exchange nearest their homes; that these men in their search for a ship often have to attend at the port of South Shields, 10 miles away, yet are compelled to sign the register six days a week at Newcastle; and will he give instructions that seamen shall sign three days a week at their nearest exchange or, alternatively, at the port they visit in their search for work?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I understand it is already possible for a seaman registered at Newcastle and seeking work at South Shields on any particular day to give evidence of unemployment at the
latter place without visiting the Newcastle Central Exchange on that day. The arrangements at Newcastle with regard to seamen's claims are not more onerous than those applying to such claims generally, and I do not think I should be justified in relaxing them, but if the hon. Member has any particular case of apparent hardship in mind I shall be glad to look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANISATION.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 13.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the appeal of the employers' organisation to the international Court on the issue as to the title of the International Labour Organisation to legislate over employers as well as workpeople has now been heard; and, if so, what is the decision arrived at?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: On 23rd July, 1926, the Permanent Court of International Justice delivered an advisory opinion in the following terms:
The Court is of opinion
That it is within the competence of the International Labour Organisation to draw up and to propose labour legislation which, in order to protect certain classes of workers, also regulates incidentally the same work when performed by the employer himself.
In order that the full bearing of this opinion may be understood. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a copy of the statement published in the Monthly Summary of the League of Nations for July, 1926.

Following is the statement promised:
At a public hearing, held on 23rd July, the Permanent Court of International Justice delivered its advisory opinion on the following question, transmitted to it for this purpose by the Council of the League of Nations:
Is it within the competence of the International Labour Organisation to draw up and to propose labour legislation which, in order to protect certain classes of workers, also regulates incidentally the same work when performed by the employer himself?

The origin of this question was as follows:

On the agenda of the Sixth Session of the International Labour Organisation held in 1924 was included, amongst other subjects, "Night Work in Bakeries." On this question the International Labour Office had prepared a draft convention, according to
which no work might be done in bakeries at night; thus no distinction of persons was made. The report of the committee instructed by the Conference to examine the draft arrived at the same conclusion; but this report was accompanied by a minority report raising serious objections to the application of the prohibition of night work to the employer himself. The version expressing the view of the majority was provisionally adopted at a full meeting of the Conference, and was referred to the Seventh Session of the Conference for a final vote. In the course of that session, in 1925, the preceding decision was confirmed in spite of the strenuous opposition of members of the Employers' Group. The version finally adopted expressly states that the prohibition of night work in bakeries "applies to the work of all persons, including proprietors as well as workers."

At the Thirtieth Session of the Governing Body of the International Labour Office, held, in January, 1926, the Employers' Group proposed that the Court should be consulted on the question whether "the International Labour Organisation was competent to draw up and propose regulations applying to the work of the employer himself." In the course of the discussion, the question was restricted to the competence of the International Labour Organisation "to draw up and propose regulations which, whilst primarily and essentially intended to deal with the work of employed persons, incidentally affected the work of an employer considered himself as a worker." The wording of the question finally put to the Court by the Council of the League at the request of the Governing Body was doubtless intended to express the same idea.

In its opinion, the Court first of all analysed the terms of the question upon which its opinion had been asked. It was thus led to observe that the question, being general, did not relate to any particular branch of industry; the Court therefore did not specifically consider the conditions of the baking industry. It went on to show that it was not called upon to deal with the work of the employer in general—competence to regulate this had not been claimed on behalf of the International Labour Organisation—but, only in so far as work done by the employer was the same as that of the worker, and as its regulation was incidental to a regulation proposed in order to protect certain classes of workers. Under the terms of reference, the proposed regulation of the work of the employer was to be assumed to be really incidental to labour legislation for the protection of wage-earners, admittedly within the competence of the International Labour Organisation. The question was: Could the International Labour Organisation exercise this competence in a case where the legislation proposed for the protection of the wage-earner would incidentally regulate the same work done by the employer himself, seeing that the employer, when performing the same work which was performed by the wage-earner, did not normally fall within the competence of the International Labour Organisation?

This question was, in the Court's opinion, a question of law, the answer to which depended on the terms of Part XIII (Labour) of the Peace Treaty of Versailles. The Court therefore proceeded to analyse the provisions of this part, especially those defining the programme and objects of the international Labour Organisation. This led to the observation that the measures adopted for the attainment of these objects might affect the rights and interests of employers as well as of the employed, and also that the competence of the Organisation was very wide, but, at the same time, limited to proposing the adoption of national or international labour legislation. Again, by means of provisions in regard to the right of Governments to object to the inclusion on the agenda of Conferences of a particular item, and in regard to the majority of two-thirds required for the adoption of any draft, the High Contracting Parties had, quite apart from the reference of any question or dispute to the Court, taken precautions against the undue extension of the sphere of activity of the International Labour Organisation. Nevertheless, it was not conceivable that the High Contracting Parties intended to prevent the International Labour Organisation from proposing measures essential to the protection of wage-earners; but, in the Court's opinion, it would be prevented from doing so if it were not competent to propose regulations which, in order to attain their legitimate object, must necessarily apply to some extent to work done by employers. Moreover, in the treaty were to be found special provisions in the application of which the incidental regulation of the personal work of the employer was potentially involved. The Court mentioned as a contemporary and practical interpretation of the limits placed by Part XIII on the competence of the International Labour Organisation, the inclusion in the agenda of the First Labour Conference, under the actual terms of Part XIII, of the extension and application of the convention concerning white phosphorus; this convention prohibited the use of white phosphorus in the manufacture of matches without making any distinction as to persons. The Court also considered in a similar connection the convention prohibiting the use of white lead in painting; it did so in virtue of the principle that, in determining the extent of a particular governmental power, resort might be had to practice, national and international. Lastly, the Court referred to some of the arguments developed by it in Advisory Opinion No. 3, which, applied to the present question, would seem to prove that the International Labour Organisation could not be precluded from proposing regulations for the protection of workers on the ground that such regulations might have the effect of incidentally regulating, at the same time, the work of the employer.

No doubt the question whether, in a particular case, the regulation of the personal work of the employer were primary rather than incidental, might give rise to controversy.

The Court allowed it to be understood that the International Labour Organisation had, in regard to this point, discretionary powers to exercise judgment in the circumstances of each case; these powers, however, were not unlimited, but existed subject to the right of recourse to the Court itself provided for in regard to "any question or dispute relating to the interpretation" of Part XIII. For this reason, moreover, the Court, while replying to the question put in the affirmative, abstained from considering "controversial cases" in regard to which its opinion had not been sought and from indicating how such cases should be dealt with.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL INSURANCE (FOREIGN COUNTRIES).

Mr. DAVIES: 17.
also asked the Minister of Labour why His Majesty's Government have requested the International Labour Office to conduct an inquiry into the cost of social insurance in other countries; and for what purpose the information is required?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The cost of social insurance in the various countries is, in the opinion of His Majesty's Government, a factor which must be taken into account in considering the problems of industry from an international standpoint. Authoritative information on the subject is at present lacking, and the Governing Body of the International Labour Office has, therefore, requested that office to study the question and collect the necessary data.

Mr. DAVIES: When the information is to hand, will it be published for the use of this House?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I shall be glad to give this House any information I can get on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKERS' WAGES.

Mr. R. MORRISON: 19 and 20.
asked the Minister of Labour (1) whether any wage increases have been obtained by bodies of workers during the present year; and, if so, in what trades or occupations;
(2) whether he can state the trades and occupations in which the workers have suffered decreases of wages during the present year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: Particulars of all changes in rates of wages known to the Department are published in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette." I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the more important cases of net increase or reduction during the present year up to the end of October.

Mr. TAYLOR: Is it still the view of the Prime Minister that all wages must come down?
The following is the list. According to the information available in the Ministry of Labour, the following are the more important bodies of work-people who have been reported as having received net increases in rates of wages during the present year up to the end of October:

Iron ore miners and limestone quarrymen—Cumberland.
Ironstone miners—Cleveland.
Explosives workers (certain classes only)—Great Britain.
Blastfurnace workers—Cleveland.
Brickmakers—Peterborough.
Aerated water makers—Great Britain.
Papermakers (women and lower-paid men only)—Great Britain
Civil engineering workers — Great Britain (except in certain smaller districts).
Building trade workers—Liverpool and district.
Electricity supply workers—London.
Male agricultural workers—Bedford, Huntingdon, Berkshire, Norfolk, Suffolk, Shropshire, Anglesey and Carnarvon.

The following are the more important bodies of workers who have been reported as having sustained not reductions in rates of wages during the same period:

Shale miners and oil workers—Scotland.
Blastfurnace workers (tonnage workers only)—North Staffs and Scotland.
Blastfurnace workers (except labourers)—Cumberland.
Steel smelters (except lower-paid men)—England and Scotland.
Steel sheet millmen—England and Wales.
Iron puddlers and millmen—North of England, Midlands and Scotland.
1065
Iron and steel workers (except lower-paid men in certain sections)—South Wales.
Electric cable makers—Great Britain.
Iron and steel wire drawers—Great Britain.
Bedstead makers—Birmingham and District.
Chain makers—Midlands.
Linen workers—Northern Ireland.
Carpet workers—Great Britain.
Textile bleachers, dyers, finishers, etc.—Yorkshire, Lancashire and Scotland.
Boot and shoe makers—Great Britain.*
Seed crushers and oil millers—Great Britain.
Railway traffic workers (except men in receipt of minimum base rates) —Great Britain.
Coal tippers—Great Britain.
Omnibus drivers and conductors—London.
Road transport workers—Scotland

*An increase in wages arranged to take effect in November will leave wages in most cases at the same level as at the beginning of the year.

STATEMENT 1. NO. 1.


Statement showing the amount of subsidy paid in respect of sugar and molasses, respectively, in each financial year since the introduction of the subsidy.


Factory.
Sugar.
Molasses.


1924–25.
1925–26.
1926–27 to 6th Nov., 1926.
1924–25.
1925–26.
1926–27.to 6th Nov., 1926.



£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.
£
s.
d.


1.
 Cantley
272,517
7
9
331,934
17
0
104,048
19
11
16,482
12
3
28,937
16
10
22,977
18
2


2.
 Kelham
119,188
14
4
86,224
5
10
44,507
15
6
9,758
18
7
17,312
14
2
132
13
9


3.
Ely
—
187,599
15
0
117,168
14
9
—
4,133
17
7
26,123
14
5


4.
 Ipswich
—
57,034
1
2
80,032
13
0
—
3,945
10
0
—


5.
 Colwick
74,092
11
8
150,022
17
11
24,993
2
2
—
1,266
10
9
—


6.
 Spalding
—
—
8,267
1
10
—
—
—


7.
 Kidder-minister.
—
63,163
15
2
23,052
7
10
—
—
—


8.
 Poppleton
—
—
1,019
0
1
—
—
—


9.
 Wissington
—
48,725
2
10
4,819
8
6
—
1,543
7
5
3,120
9
1


10.
 Bury St. Edmunds.
—
73,603
4
8
45,360
18
0
—
6,536
16
10
13,195
17
5


11.
 Greenock
—
2,759
4
7
—
—
1,346
1
3
—


12.
 Peter borough
—
—
8,059
2
1
—
—
—



Total
465,798
13
9
1,001,067
4
2
461,329
3
8
26,241
10
10
65,022
14
10
65,550
12
10

Employees in non-trading services of local authorities—London, Lancashire, East Midlands and Middlesex.

Electricity supply workers—All districts except London, North East Coast, East Midlands and Home Counties.

Male agricultural workers—Northumberland and Glamorgan.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR BEET FACTORIES.

Mr. DUCKWORTH: 22.
asked the Minister of Labour the amount of subsidy paid to each of the sugar beet factories in respect of sugar and molasses, respectively, in each financial year since the subsidy was introduced; the factories expected to operate this season, but not having operated before; and the aggregate capitalisation to date of all the subsidised sugar beet companies and the individual guarantees toward cost of building under the Trade Facilities Act?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): I have been asked to reply and propose, with the hon. Member's permission, to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT four statements giving the desired information.

Following are the statements:

STATEMENT No. 2.


The new beet sugar factories, which have not operated before, are as follows:—


Spalding.


Peterborough.


Cupar (Fife).


Poppleton (York).


Felstead (Essex).

With the exception of Cupar, all these factories are now operating, and Cupar is expected to start very soon.

STATEMENT No. 3.


Statement showing the capitalisation of Beet Sugar Factory Companies.



Factory
Capital.


Company
Issued Shares.
Debentures (including Trade Facilities guarantees—see Statement No. 4).
Total





£
£


1.
English Beet Sugar Corporation, Ltd.
Cantley
540,507
—
450,507


2.
Home Grown Sugar, Ltd.
Kelbam
125,000
196,982
321,982


3.
Ely Beet Sugar Factory, Ltd.
Ely
250,000
100,000
350,000


4.
Ipswich Beet Sugar Factory, Ltd.
Ipswich
250,000
100,000
350,000


5.
 Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Ltd.
Colwick
425,000
690,000
1,115,000


Spalding


6.
West Midland Sugar Company, Ltd.
Kidderminster
180,000
150,000
330,000


7.
 Second Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Ltd.
Poppleton (York)
250,000
865,000
1,115,000


Felstead


Cupar


8.
British Sugar Manufacturers, Ltd.
Wissington
350,000
250,000
600,000


9.
United Sugar Co., Ltd.
Bury St. Edmunds
300,000
—
300,000


10.
Central Sugar Co., Ltd.
Peterborough
175,000
175,000
350,000


11.
Orchard Sugar Co., Ltd.
Greenock
170,000
*80,000
250,000





2,925,507
2,606,982
5,532,489


* An additional guarantee of £100,000 has been granted by Trade Facilities Act Advisory Committee, but this has not yet been taken up.

STATEMENT 4.


Statement showing the amount of individual guarantees made to date under the Trade Facilities Act to Beet Sugar Factory Companies.


Name of Company.
Factories.
Guarantees given.
Loans taken up.




£
£


Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Ltd.
Colwick
…
610,000
610,000


Spalding
…


Second Anglo-Scottish Beet Sugar Corporation, Ltd.
Poppleton (York)
…
865,000
865,000


Cupar
…


Felstead
…


West Midland Sugar Co., Ltd.
Kidderminster
…
150,000
150,000


Orchard Sugar Co., Ltd.
Greenock
…
180,000
80,000


Central Sugar Co., Ltd.
Peterborough
…
185,000
175,000


Total
…
1,990,000
1,880,000

Oral Answers to Questions — FLYING BOATS (LONG-DISTANCE CRUISES).

Colonel DAY: 23.
asked the Secretary of Sate for Air if he is able to state the results of the tests of the Royal Air Force long-distance flying boats in the round flight to Egypt and Cyprus?

Captain Viscount CURZON (Lord of the Treasury): I have been asked to reply. The result of the flight referred to by the hon. Member was the acquisition of some very valuable information bearing upon the flying design and maintenance of flying boats on long-distance cruises. My right hon. Friend is sending the hon. Member a copy of an Air Ministry communiqué upon this subject, which perhaps he has not seen.

Colonel DAY: Will the Noble Lord say if a full service load was carried on this flight?

Viscount CURZON: I am afraid that I cannot answer a technical question of that kind, but I will call the attention of my right hon. Friend to it.

Oral Answers to Questions — ST. JAMES'S PARK (BRIDGE).

Mr. CAMPBELL: 24.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether he has received any offer to substitute a stone bridge for the suspension bridge over St. James's Park lake; and, if so, whether he will state the facts and conditions of the offer, together with any reason for making the substitution suggested?

Captain HACKING (for The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS): An offer of a free gift of a stone bridge has been made, but the proposal is at present in abeyance. Should it be revived, the House will be placed in full possession of the facts before any decision is reached.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH TROOPS (EGYPT AND SUDAN).

Sir FREDRIC WISE: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for War the numbers and the cost of the British standing army in Egypt in 1914 and in 1926?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Captain Douglas King): The establishment of the British troops in Egypt and the Sudan for 1913–14 was approximately 6,300, and the cost as shown in the Army Appropriation Account was £643,127. For 1926–27 the establishment is approximately 12,400, and the estimated cost, as shown on page 256 of Army Estimates, 1926, is £2,677,800. The figures for 1926–27 cover an Infantry detachment of about 120 men stationed in Cyprus.

Sir F. WISE: I gather from the figures that the establishment is up by 100 per cent., and that the cost is up by 450 per cent. Is there any chance of a reduction?

Captain KING: I do not gather that from the figures. The cost per man is certainly up just over 100 per cent. and not 450 per cent.

Sir F. WISE: Is there any chance of a reduction?

Captain KING: I cannot hold out any hope of a reduction at the present time. We require this extra number of men for services in connection with the mechanicalisation of transport, and this does incur a heavier cost proportionate to the number of men.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman say why we require such a large number of men?

Captain KING: It is a matter of policy.

Mr. THURTLE: May I ask whether this increase in the establishment and in the cost of maintenance is one of the advantages accruing to Egypt now that she has got self-government?

Colonel APPLIN: Has not the pay of the Army nearly doubled?

Captain KING: Yes; that is certainly one of the reasons.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE

PIG IRON (PRODUCTION COSTS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 27.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can give the figures of the relative costs of producing a ton of pig iron in Great
Britain, the United States of America, Germany and France, apart from exceptional circumstances such as strikes?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Burton Chadwick): I have no information as to the relative costs of producing pig iron in the countries mentioned.

TOBACCO AND MATCHES (PRICES).

Mr. LUNN: 28.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he is aware that tobacco which was sold retail at 3d. per oz. in 1914 is now sold at 8½d. per oz., the same quality or inferior, and that matches which were 2½d. per dozen boxes in 1914 are now 10½d. per dozen retail; and whether the Government propose to take any action to deal with profiteering in these articles?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I am aware of the increases mentioned. These matters were considered in 1919–20 by committees under the Profiteering Acts, who were of opinion that in view of the increases over the pre-War level in Customs and Excise duties, and in other costs, the prices then charged were not unreasonable. I am not aware of any change since that time which would justify a contrary opinion now.

Mr. LUNN: Is the hon. Gentleman not aware that since 1920 wages have gone down to the tune of hundreds of millions; and is it not time that the Board of Trade considered the vast profits made out of the manufacture of these articles, and endeavoured to see that some relief is given to those who consume these articles and reduce the profiteering that goes on?

Sir B. CHADWICK: Taxation accounts for the great bulk of this increase in price. The duty on unstripped tobacco has risen from 2¾d. per ounce pre-War to 6.12d. That is a very great increase and largely accounts for the higher prices. Of course, in the price of tobacco the enormous profits that are represented by the companies' sale of tobacco are shown over an immense turnover in regard to a commodity sold in very small quantities; therefore the infliction upon the consumer is relatively very small. The immense profits are due to the big sales of the companies.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that on the figures he has given to the House the cost of the actual commodity apart from taxation, is still 150 per cent. above pre-War?

Viscountess ASTOR: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether it is true that wages have gone down in this particular industry?

Sir B. CHADWICK: My answer to the last supplementary question is that I do not know. My reply to the hon. Member opposite (Mr. T. Williams) is that he is mistaken. I have quoted a figure which represents an increase of 4d. per ounce for taxation alone and in addition to that there is the extra cost of raw material which is to-day about 6 of a penny per ounce.

SAFETY RAZOR BLADES.

Mr. ALBERY: 29.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the last available figures for a month showing the number of safety razor blades manufactured in this country; and if he will give similar figures for the corresponding month in the year before this industry was brought under the influence of safeguarding?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I am unable to give figures of the output of safety razor blades in the United Kingdom as a whole, but, from such partial information as I have, it would appear that the output in September, 1926, was much greater than in September, 1925.

Mr. ALBERY: Can my hon. Friend say whether, in addition to an increase in the output of safety razors in this country, there is also an export trade now in safety razors?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I should require notice of that question.

Mr. HARDIE: Do the figures given include blanks as razor blades?

Sir B. CHADWICK: I cannot hear the hon. Member's question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD COUNCIL.

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 30.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how many sub-committees of the Food Council have now been appointed and are now operating; and what are the subjects with which they are dealing?

Sir B. CHADWICK: The executive and preparatory work of the Food Council is carried out by the Council's Executive Committee. The Committee deal with all inquiries conducted by the Council, and the Council prefer this method to the appointment of ad hoc sub-committees. The inquiries now being carried out by the Council and their Executive Committee are indicated in the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 25th October.

Sir W. de FRECE: In the last reply we were told that the Council have power to appoint sub-committees. Have any sub-committees been appointed?

Sir B. CHADWICK: There is an Executive Committee, but the Council as a rule deals with these questions as a Council, referring such matters as it thinks fit to the Executive Committee.

Mr. TAYLOR: Have the Food Council under consideration the enormous increase in freight rates for grain from South America and Canada?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a different question.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHERIES (RESEARCH).

Commander BELLAIRS: 31.
asked the Minister of Agriculture if he is aware of the small proportion of the destruction of fish due to human agency; and if he will consider devoting more of the money now spent on statistical matters to the discovery of new fishing grounds through aviation and other means?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): So far as I am aware, no moans have yet been discovered of measuring the respective parts played in the destruction of fish life by human and other agencies; but there is definite evidence that the effects of fishing on the stock of fish are by no means negligible. Statistics are of fundamental importance for the intelligent study of fishery problems, and I do not propose to do anything to impair the accuracy of our fishery statistics. As funds permit and opportunity serves, assistance will be given for the discovery of new fishing grounds, and but for the coal strike—[Interruption]— but for the shortage of coal an exploratory expedition jointly financed by trawler owners and the Government would have
been carried out this year from Fleetwood. Aviation as a means of discovering fish has already been tested by the Ministry and by the Fishery Board for Scotland, and has proved useless for the purpose

Major PRICE: Can the Minister tell us when the fishery research vessels for the Atlantic, which were promised last year, will come into being?

Mr. GUINNESS: We are also discussing that matter with the representatives of the western fisheries interests, and we hope that before long, with their help, a boat may be provided, anyhow temporarily.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

STAMP CANCELLATION.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 32.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he can give the approximate cost per annum which would be required for the purchase of rights in the obliterating postmark on all letters despatched from this country to the Continent?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The process of stamp cancellation is necessarily performed before letters are sorted according to their destinations, and so it is impossible to confine a particular postmark to letters for particular destinations. I could not, therefore, give the estimate for which my hon. Friend asks.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: Will the Noble Lord consider the suggestion to help a national effort, such as the "Come to Britain" movement, in the course of the obliteration of the stamps?

Viscount WOLMER: All my hon. Friend's suggestions will be carefully considered.

Colonel DAY: Can the Noble Lord say whether it is a fact that this machine is made in America?

Viscount WOLMER: The dies are made in England.

Colonel DAY: Is the machine made in America?

Viscount WOLMER: The machine that cancels the stamps on letters is made in America. It is not manufactured in this
country. If it were manufactured in this country my right hon. Friend would purchase it.

PRESS TELEGRAMS.

Sir H. BRITTAIN: 34.
asked the Postmaster-General what has been the cost to the taxpayer during the last three years, respectively, of the reduction allowed from ordinary telegraphic rates for Press telegrams?

Viscount WOLMER: The revenue from Press telegrams has been £91,000, £83,000 and £84,000, respectively, in the last three financial years. At ordinary rates the revenue from the same amount of traffic would probably have been between £500,000 and £600,000 per annum, but considerable labour would be involved in obtaining the information necessary to estimate it with accuracy. It must not be assumed that, if ordinary rates had been charged, the Press traffic would have attained the same volume.

Mr. RADFORD: Can the Noble Lord state what justification at all there is for the general taxpayers of the country subsidising one of the most prosperous industries in the country at the present moment?

Viscount WOLMER: I do not think we can argue that matter at this moment, but I can assure my hon. Friend that the Postmaster-General is giving this matter his very careful attention.

Commander BELLAIRS: As there is a real loss when proportionate charges are involved, may I ask why a subsidy is given to betting in respect of betting telegrams for the Press?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Noble Lord cannot give an answer on that point.

BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

Sir W. de FRECE: 33.
asked the Postmaster-General the date when the British Broadcasting Corporation (Salaries) Vote will be taken; and whether the papers will define the exact reasons for the specific appointments made to the corporation?

Mr. PRESTON: 35.
asked the Postmaster-General if he can now state the
day and Vote on which the discussions on the broadcasting charter and scheme of working will come before the House; and whether decisions in this matter will be left to the free vote of the House?

Viscount WOLMER: The order of Business is a matter for the Leader of the House. I would suggest that my hon. Friends should await the usual statement of Business to-morrow. The answer to the last part of both questions is in the negative.

Colonel DAY: Is the qualification to serve on this Committee an entire lack of knowledge of the entertainment industry?

Viscount WOLMER: If the hon. Member wants to know the qualification, he had better read the Report of the Broadcasting Committee.

Colonel DAY: Will the noble Lord say whether it is intended to put on this Committee anyone who has any knowledge of the entertainment industry?

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL TRADE DISPUTE.

PRICES.

Sir W. de FRECE: 38.
asked the Secretary for Mines the pit-head prices for the ordinary types of coal used for domestic and factory consumption, respectively, on 6th November in comparison with the prices on 1st May last; whether he has considered the necessity for further action to protect the interests of the public from excessive prices; and, if so, what steps he proposes to take?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Colonel Lane Fox): Pit-head prices varied widely in the different districts at 6th November, and in general were substantially higher than at 1st May. This upward movement—due to short supplies—has been checked by a voluntary reduction to 50s. per ton in certain coalfields; and I hope that reductions in the other districts now working will shortly follow. Steps are being taken to secure that the full benefit of these reductions is passed on to the domestic consumer.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Will the right hon. Gentleman make inquiries into the position in Scotland, where tenement dwellings are common, and where coal merchants are charging, to poor people living
at the top of these dwellings, a considerable amount extra for delivering coal to them?

Mr. BOOTHBY: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that no profiteering is going on in coal, particularly in Scotland, in Dundee and in the North-Eastern part of the country?

Colonel LANE FOX: I am waiting to hear with regard to Scotland. A meeting was to be held, and I am waiting to hear the result. I have put the whole position before the Scottish coalowners, and I hope they will act in the same broadminded manner as those in England have.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is not so much the coalowners as the direct merchants who are charging people in tenement dwellings, after they have paid their price of 5s. or 5s. 3d. for a bag, another 6d. or 1s. for removing it to the tenement? That is not a subject for negotiation with the coalowners, and what steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to prevent it?

Colonel LANE FOX: I agree that that trouble has arisen, particularly, I think, in Glasgow, and I am trying to deal with it. I thought the answer I gave covered the general question, but I am looking into that particular point, and will see what can be done.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: May I ask whether there is any reluctance on the part of Socialists to buy this blackleg coal?

Mr. LUNN: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the first part of the question on the Paper, as to what were the pithead prices of coal on the 1st May and what were the prices on the 6th November? That is the question; can the right hon. Gentleman answer it for the information of the House?

Colonel LANE FOX: The reason why I have not given a more detailed answer is that there is, as the hon Gentleman knows, a very large and varied number of prices in different parts of the country, and if I were to give an average ranging over so wide a variation it would be very misleading. The variation is very wide, and, as I have said, has arisen since the stoppage.

Mr. LUNN: If the right hon. Gentleman knows the pit-head prices, and could give them, for the 1st May, why not give them for the 6th November? We ought to have that information.

Major COLFOX: Is it not the case that the policy of the Socialist party in trying to prevent the production of coal is quite incompatible with the provision of cheap coal for the poor? You cannot have it both ways.

Mr. KIRKWOOD: Is not that the policy of the Tory party?

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in the one area where he succeeded in getting a reduction of the retail price of coal, due to excessive profiteering—that is, in Dundee—after his back was turned they have raised the price higher than it was before he got it reduced?

Colonel LANE FOX: The hon. Member is quite wrong in saying that that was the only place where I have been able to get the price reduced. As he is aware, at this moment prices are being reduced in London, to give one instance. If he will give me particulars with regard to Dundee, I will go into the matter.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Is my right hon. Friend aware that arrangements are already being made to limit the pithead price of coal throughout the length and breadth of the country, and that those arrangements will be in force almost immediately?

Mr. T. WILLAMS: Does not the figure the right hon. Gentleman has already mentioned of 50s. constitute a profit of 30s. per ton?

Colonel LANE FOX: Probably the House is aware that there has been a general arrangement to reduce prices—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"]—throughout most of the coalfields in England, and I think that is going to be general. That is the result of certain communications I have been able to make with the coal-owners. As to the profit this reduced price is still going to leave, I must remind the hon. Member opposite that we are living in exceptional circumstances, and if he and his friends will do their best—
Several other hon. Members having risen—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have already had quite a debate on this subject.

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Mr. HANNON): 10.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the extent to which the unemployment insurance fund is now indebted to the Treasury; and the estimated amount of such indebtedness due to the general strike and the coal stoppage since the 1st May of the current year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: The debt of the Unemployment Fund to the Treasury on 6th November, 1926, was £19,300,000. It is impossible to say precisely how much of the indebtedness is due to the general strike and the coal stoppage. On 1st May the figure was £7,336,000, or slightly less than the total on 16th January. As the figure for unemployment was still falling, it is reasonable to suppose that the indebtedness would have been further reduced had no industrial dispute occurred.

WAGE LOSSES.

Mr. WILLIAMS (for Mr. HANNON): 11.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he can state the total amount of losses in wages sustained by the coal industry, the iron and steel industry, the shipping industry, the engineering industry, the chemical industry and the transport industry, respectively, consequent upon the general strike and coal stoppage since the 1st May of this year?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: I have not the information which my hon. Friend wants. It might be possible to obtain it, but only by a special inquiry of an extensive character, which cannot well be undertaken until after the termination of the dispute.

FOREIGN COAL (NAPHTHA).

Colonel DAY: 40.
asked the Home Secretary if his attention has been drawn to the dangers incurred by dockers engaged in unloading foreign coal owing to the presence of naphtha in such cargoes; and whether any action has been taken, or is contemplated, with a view to the safety of workers so employed?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Captain Hacking): Special inquiry has been made but no evidence of such dangers is forthcoming.

Oral Answers to Questions — WEIR HOUSES (SCOTLAND).

Mr. BUCHANAN (for Mr. STEPHEN): 36.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of Weir houses erected in Scotland; the cost of those houses; the number occupied; and the rents at which they have been let to tenants?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): As at 31st October, 1926, the number of Weir houses erected in Scotland, with the assistance of State funds, was 854, and the number occupied was 484. The average inclusive cost per house in completed contracts is £440, and the rents vary from £14 to £34 per annum according to the type of house, the locality of erection, and the nature of the particular scheme.

Mr. GARDNER: Does that figure include drainage and sewerage?

Sir J. GILMOUR: It includes the cost of all under building, house services, garden footpaths, fencing and clothes poles, but excludes the cost of land, streets, professional fees, mains and sewers.

Mr. BUCHANAN (for Mr. STEPHEN): 37.
asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of Weir houses erected in the burgh of Cupar; the estimated and the actual cost of those houses; and the rent at which those houses are let?

Sir J. GILMOUR: The number of "Weir houses erected in the burgh of Cupar is 50; the estimated cost per house was £433; the actual cost per house, so far as at present ascertainable, is £440; and the annual rent is £22.

Oral Answers to Questions — BOOTH v. AMALGAMATED MARINE WORKERS' UNION.

Mr. ALBERY: 41.
asked the Home Secretary whether the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown on the case of Booth v. the Amalgamated Marine Workers' Union has now been considered by His Majesty's Government; and what action it is now proposed to take in this matter?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): I have been asked to reply. It is not proposed to take any action.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Are we to take it that people may commit forgery with impunity if they belong to a trade union?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No, Sir.

Mr. ALBERY: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think the answer he has just given will be an encouragement to certain trade union officials to commit very gross breaches of the rules and regulations?

Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman regard the Government as being experts in the matter of forgery?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE DISPUTES.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS (for Mr. HANNON): 12.
asked the Minister of Labour whether His Majesty's Government is now in a position to declare its policy, through the introduction of legislation, to prevent strikes and lock-outs in the principal industries of the countries without full preliminary investigation of all possible means of adjusting differences which may arise through the medium of arbitration tribunals or otherwise?

Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND: This question is one which the hon. Member should address to the Prime Minister.

Oral Answers to Questions — RIFLE RANGE EXPLOSION, BRIGHTON.

Colonel DAY: 39.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if his attention has been drawn to the explosion that occurred at the Palace Pier Rifle Range, Brighton, on 30th July; and whether such ranges are inspected by officers of his Department

Captain HACKING: I have seen a Press report of the accident, which appears to have been due to the ignition of a small quantity of flashlight powder that was being kept at the range. The occurrence was of a very unusual character and does not appear to call for any action on the part of my right
hon. Friend. These rifle ranges are not inspected by His Majesty's Inspectors of Explosives.

Colonel DAY: How many were injured in this accident?

Captain HACKING: A number were slightly injured, but there was nothing very serious.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Sir F. WISE: 42.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the amounts, respectively, received from France and Italy for interest on War Debt payments on 15th September, 1926; and the amount Britain paid to the United States in September, 1926?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Ronald MsNeill): The sum of £2,000,000 was received from France and the same amount (£2,000,000) was received from Italy on 15th September, 1926, in respect of their War debts. No payment by this country to the United States falls due on 15th September. A payment of approximately £14,000,000 for interest was made to the United States on 15th June, 1926, and a further payment of approximately £19,000,000 for interest and sinking fund falls due and will be paid on 15th December, 1926.

Sir F. WISE: Can my right hon. Friend say what would be the position if France did not ratify the agreement?

Mr. McNEILL: No, I cannot.

Colonel GRETTON: What periods do the payments of France and Italy represent?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say without notice.

Sir F. WISE: 43.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer the total amount of interest received on War debts since 1st April, 1926; and the total amount Great Britain has paid on external War debts?

Mr. McNEILL: The total amount received in respect of Allied War debts to this country since 1st April, 1926, is £4,000,000. The total amount paid by this country on external War debts during the same period is approximately £14,000,000.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS: 44.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he can state the amount paid into the Exchequer during the six months ended 30th September, 1926, in respect of German reparations, Inter-Allied debts, and debts due by other parts of the Empire, respectively?

Mr. McNEILL: The amounts paid into the Exchequer during the six months ended 30th September, 1926, in respect of German reparations, Allied War debts and relief and reconstruction debts are as follows:



£
s.
d.


German reparations
4,130,000
0
0


 Allied War debts 
4,000,000
0
0


Relief and reconstruction etc. debts
511,591
3
1


It would be quite incongruous to associate with these figures payments made in respect of debts by various parts of the Empire, but if my hon. Friend cares to put a separate question on this subject I will furnish an answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE PENSIONS.

Mr. WILLIAMS: 45.
also asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he is aware that under the Superannuation Act, 1834, persons in receipt of a pension in respect of past service in a Government Department are deprived of part of their pension if subsequently they obtain a new appointment in another Government Department, provided their pension and the emoluments of the new position exceed the emoluments of the old position; and if he is prepared to consider an amendment of the Act?

Mr. McNEILL: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. I can see no reason for an amendment of the law on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — FISHERY STATISTICS.

Commander BELLAIRS: 47.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury if there has been any scrutiny as to the cost of preparing and publishing fishing statistics; and can he state the cost inclusive of officials and proportionate charges?

Mr. GUINNESS: I have been asked to reply. The cost of preparing and publishing fishery statistics is subject to the usual annual scrutiny, and, in addition, the publication of these statistics has recently been specially examined by a Sub-Committee of the Permanent Consultative Committee on Official Statistics. The total annual cost amounts to approximately £18,700, of which roughly one-third is in respect of special statistics required in connection with fishery research.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: In the preparation of these statistics will my right hon. Friend consider the advisability of issuing some figures showing why it is that the fishermen receive so small a sum contrasted with the price at which the retailer sells the herring?

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMA FILM ("THE UNKNOWN SOLDIER").

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: (by Private Notice) asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that arrangements have been made for the exhibition on Armistice Day in London and the Provinces of an American film entitled, "The Unknown Soldier"; and whether he proposes to take steps to prevent the exhibition of this film, having regard to the pain which it will cause to many mourners who have lost relatives in the War and who will be taking part in the remembrance services on Armistice Day?

Captain HACKING: Yes, Sir; the attention of my right hon. Friend has been drawn to the proposal to show this film in London on Armistice Day, and he has looked carefully into the matter. Representations have been made to him that the film is out of harmony with the feelings of reverence and sorrow associated with this day, and my right hon. Friend sympathises with these representations, but he is advised that there is nothing in the film which would authorise any intervention on his part.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not possible for the Home Secretary to make any representation to the film censors to postpone at any rate the exhibition of the film to a more suitable occasion?

Captain HACKING: This film has been shown already in no fewer than 14 different provincial cinemas throughout this country and it has also previously been shown in London. Although the film may be considered by some to be in bad taste, we must take into consideration the fact that it has been approved by the British Board of Film Censors, which is under the able guidance of my right hon. Friend the Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. T. P. O'Connor). We must take into account that it has been approved by them.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Is not the name "The Unknown Soldier" a sacred name?

Mr. T. P. O'CONNOR: May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether the statement on which feeling has been excited against this film is that it represents the burial of a soldier in Westminster Abbey with the Stars and Stripes over the coffin, and whether that statement is not entirely false; whether it is not a fact that the only service to a soldier which is there commemorated took place over an American soldier in Washington, the full approval and aid of the American Government, and whether it can be offensive to the opinion of any sane Englishman that the Americans should celebrate, as we do, the memory of their soldiers who fell fighting by our side?

Captain HACKING: I cannot speak with regard to the approval of the American Government, but there is no doubt that this picture was taken in Washington, and that Westminster Abbey is not represented in the film.

Oral Answers to Questions — COMMUNIST MEETINGS, GLAMORGAN (PROHIBITION).

Mr. MORGAN JONES: asked the Home Secretary whether the action of the police at Caerphilly and Abertridwr during the last week-end in prohibiting the holding of public meetings under the auspices of the Communist party had his official sanction?

Captain HACKING: Yes, Sir. The Chief Constable of Glamorgan prohibited these meetings under an authority given by my right hon. Friend in pursuance of No. 22 of the Emergency Regulations.

Mr. JONES: Is the hon. and gallant Member aware that in the public notice
relative to this matter authority is cited under Emergency Regulation No. 7 and not under Regulation No. 22? May I ask further, whether this ban is a ban to be applied merely for one occasion, last weekend, or for the whole of this industrial dispute, and whether it applies to the Communist party alone or to all political organisations?

Captain HACKING: The discretion is left to the Chief Constable. He has the powers now, if he cares to avail himself of those powers, to prohibit any meeting if he believes that such a meeting will lead to a breach of the peace.

Mr. JONES: May I press this matter? May I ask for a specific answer whether the notice—a copy of which I hold in my hand—does not imply that this ban is to apply for a long period, and that at the bottom of the notice the ban applies to a specific date, that is, last week-end?

Captain HACKING: I have not seen the notice, but if the Chief Constable determines over a period of time that it will lead to a breach of the peace to hold these meetings, he is authorised to prohibit them.

Mr. JONES: If public speeches during this crisis are deemed to be liable to lead to breaches of the peace, will this apply to the Home Secretary's speech at Newport next Monday?

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (BLIND PERSONS FACILITIES).

Captain FRASER: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to facilitate the use of wireless telegraphy by the blind.
The object of this Bill is to provide blind persons with free licences for the use of broadcast receiving apparatus. It is an object which I earnestly hope will appeal to the judgment of the House as good. I understand that, had the Wireless Telegraphy and Signalling Bill of 1925 been proceeded with, a Clause would have been inserted in that Bill to secure this object; but Parliamentary time made it impossible for that Bill to become an Act, and the Clause, therefore, could not be inserted. The Clause, however, was prepared, and the Government Broadcasting Committee, which
reported in the Spring of this year, endorsed the proposal that blind persons should have these free licences. The Broadcasting Committee contemplated that its main recommendations affecting the future control of broadcasting in this country would be carried into effect by Statute, and had that taken place, there would have been a Bill before Parliament in which a Clause to bring about the object I desire could have been included. As it is, there is no current or proposed Bill by means of which this gift can be made, and I am consequently venturing to provide this opportunity to the House, which I earnestly hope it may see fit to take.
The Bill falls into two Clauses, the first of which enables the Postmaster-General, subject to such restrictions and conditions as are usually imposed in the issue of these licences, to issue the licences free to the blind, instead of exacting 10s. per licence from them. The second Clause merely defines blind persons, When account is taken of those blind persons who are too young to enjoy or use wireless, of those, unfortunately a large number, who are mentally deficient, and of those who reside in public or charitable institutions or schools, there remains a relatively small number of possible beneficiaries—not more than 25,000 or 30,000 persons, including 1,500 ex-service men. The outside maximum lose of revenue could not exceed £15,000 or £20,000. It must be obvious that that is a very outside estimate, for it would be unreasonable to suppose that 100 per cent. of those persons who may be eligible for benefits would in fact have wireless receivers.
The Bill has the approval, I gather, of many institutions for the blind throughout the country, and I have learned that there are large numbers of blind people who would very greatly appreciate this gift if it were made to them. There is another point in regard to finance which is of very great significance. I am able to state that the Treasury see no objection to the Bill. I hope that any doubts which hon. Members may have had in regard to finance may, perhaps, be removed by that statement. The Ministry of Health and also the Post Office have approved the draft, and nothing stands in the way of the fulfil-
ment of this desire except the question of time. I have no time to plead the case for this Bill, and the interest which some of my friends have been good enough to take in it leads me to suppose that it is not necessary. But there are three reasons why I have raised this question. The first is that in my opinion there are no means so useful, or so full of potential usefulness, as broadcasting for adult self-education, and there is no class in the community so limited in its ability to undertake self-education as the blind community. There is no other class that is unable of its own volition to read the daily newspapers, and no class so cut off from the normal entertainments which the ordinary man and woman can enjoy in the evening hours. Lastly, there is much that can be done, and I hope will be done, to alleviate the material and mental condition of the blind people of this country. But while this Bill does nothing to meet many of these needs, it does do something to facilitate the use by these people of an invention which means much more to them than to any other class in the community. I am introducing this Bill now for this one reason—namely, that I believe there is a real good chance of it becoming law before Christmas, and that being so, I earnestly ask for the support of all parties in the House in order that this result may be achieved.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Captain Fraser, Major Astor, Mr. Walter Baker, Captain Wedgwood Benn, Major Ruggles-Brise, Major Cohen, Mr. William Graham, and Mr. Macquisten.

WIRELESS TELEGRAPHY (BLIND PERSONS FACILITIES) BILL,

"to facilitate the use of Wireless Telegraphy by the Blind," presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 185.]

SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEES).

STANDING COMMITTEE C.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON reported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following members from Standing Committee C: Mr.
Harmsworth and Sir George Hume; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Guinness and Mr. Solicitor-General.

Mr. WILLIAM NICHOLSON further reported from the Committee; That they had discharged the following Members from Standing Committee C (added in respect of the Small Holdings and Allotments Bill): Mr. Greenwood, Mr. Thomas Kennedy, and Mr. Wheatley; and had appointed in substitution: Mr. Cove Mr. MacLaren, and Mr. Riley.

Reports to lie upon the Table.

PARKS REGULATION (AMENDMENT) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 188.]

SALE OF FOODS (WEIGHTS AND MEASURES) BILL [Lords].

Read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 189.]

CRIMINAL JUSTICE (INCREASE OF PENALTIES) BILL.

Lords Amendments to be considered upon Friday, and to be printed. [Bill 190.]

Orders of the Day — ELECTRICITY (SUPPLY) BILL.

As amended (in the Standing Committee) further considered.

CLAUSE 5.—(Existing selected stations.)

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HARDIE:

"In page 6, line 31, to leave out from the word 'order' to the word 'acquire' in line 34."

Mr. SPEAKER: This Amendment is not in order, because it imposes a charge on the Exchequer. A manuscript Amendment has been handed in which is in order.

Mr. HARDIE: I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, to leave out from the word "empower" to the end of line 33.
By this Amendment we are seeking to establish, if we can, some of the claims made by hon. Members opposite that this is a Socialist Bill. We are proposing to leave out words which, to all people who want to get a real organisation, seem to make real organisation impossible. Under this Clause the Board, if it is unable to come to satisfactory terms in order to carry out its schemes, are empowered to go to other authorised undertakers. The Government, even if one set of people have failed, propose to maintain the principle of the Bill, which is that it shall be in the hands of private enterprise. We want to delete that and get these powers direct into the hands of the Board. All business men will agree that where you cannot get agreement with existing undertakers you are not likely to carry out your schemes satisfactorily by a company hastily formed. What we are pleading for is that in these circumstances the Board shall acquire the generating station. Why should not the Board do so? There are bound to be many evolutions in this enterprise and hundreds of difficulties will be cropping up, as they do whenever you come up against vested interests. It seems to me that in every case where the interests of the nation are in competition with vested interests, the interests of the nation have to suffer. I have never seen
a Bill in which there has been a definite Clause giving the Government power to say to vested interests that as the interests of the nation are greater than theirs, they must agree to carry out the wishes and will of the Government, or get out altogether.
In our opinion, it is the duty of the Board, under this Bill, to become the owners of all stations in those areas where such conditions arise. You cannot expect to get efficiency when you have to form a new company in an area. Where an organisation exists and the owners are unwilling to comply with the request made, then the Board, under the Bill, must begin an entirely new system of generation and distribution. If this Bill is in the interests of the nation—the nation having appointed the Board and paying it well in order that it should be the chief authority—there should be nothing in the Clause that takes the real functions of the Board out of its hands. If you read the Bill through, every reference to the Board means that it is the controlling authority, and it can only carry out the duties which have been entrusted to it by taking over everything that is required in the national interest. The arguments used yesterday in opposition to this policy showed that whilst outside it is the policy of the present Government to try and make the public believe that this is a great Measure for the good of the whole community, the speeches inside this House show that the interests of the community are a secondary consideration. The first consideration of this Bill, in every part, is a bowing of the knee to vested interests. In every step in Committee we had to face that fact, and the Opposition was bought off only by throwing out another bit to them. We ask that the Government should now show the public that they are in real earnest by omitting these words in order to give the Board full powers, so that in all such circumstances as I have described the Board will rule and will run any plant in the interest of the nation as a whole.

Mr. KELLY: I beg to second the Amendment.
We hope that the House will realise what is required in bringing into operation a real scheme for the provision of
power and light, which are needed for our industry and our domestia life. The Clause states that where those at present owning stations are unwilling to accept the conditions under this scheme, the Board, instead of undertaking the duty itself, shall devote its time to looking around for another company or person to do the work, so that the community would again be placed at the mercy of a small section of people such as those who have dealt with us so badly in connection with electricity supply up to the present. Surely, if we are sincere in desiring to have electricity in its proper place, we ought not again to place ourselves at the mercy of private companies such as we have been placed under hitherto. Yesterday we heard that it is very bad to have public ownership. If I remember aright, the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) spoke even of how it would mean the waste of almost the whole of the £33,500,000 which is the figure mentioned for this Bill. It is a very curious thing that many of those people whom one finds in Government employ are readily snapped up by big business whenever big business wishes to use their capacity in any undertaking. It is curious that big business is prepared to accept and to hand out a certificate of merit to men like Sir Josiah Stamp, once they are employed at a high salary by a railway company, but thinks of them as wasters of money when they are engaged in the Government service. That is the only interpretation to be put upon the statement which we had yesterday.
We ask that the community should not allow this great power to pass into the hands of private people so that they may make fortunes out of it, but that the interest of the community may be the guiding motive in carrying on this great industry. Therefore, we ask that the Board shall undertake this work, shall empower the taking over of the stations to itself, rather than hand them over to private companies. If one company has been unwilling it is not right that we should be placed at the mercy of another company which may be unwilling. I hope that the Government, even with the keen opposition they have to face, will accept the Amendment. There is nothing in this Bill that demands any praise from us. Even a proposal that was
accepted yesterday many people regard as municipalisation. It is not satisfactory to us and is not municipalisation at all. When the question is one of taking over a station that has been run by people who are unwilling to come into the national scheme, I hope that the Board will take the station for the sake of the people as a whole.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment have stated very concisely and very cogently the point of view from which they urge this Amendment, but it is not a point of view which the Government or those who sit on these Benches are able to accept. The Mover of the Amendment said that the effect of the Bill as it stands is to play into the hands of private enterprise, and that we are taking the function of the Board out of its hands, because the Board is the controlling authority. It is quite true that we are playing into the hands of private enterprise in this sense—namely, that we do not desire that these stations shall be acquired or operated by the Board unless the possibilities of their being privately acquired and privately operated are first exhausted. We believe, rightly or wrongly, that we can get more efficient generation if the stations are in private hands—by private hands I mean the hands of existing authorised undertakers rather than a great central Board—which has the incentive of the possibility of reducing the cost to themselves of the current which is generated. We feel that it is more efficiently done if the stations are in the hands of the existing authorised undertakers, be they public or private authorities, rather than if they are handed over to the actual working or ownership of a great central Board such as this.
4.0 P.M.
The whole Clause is one which, in the opinion of the Government, is not very likely to have to be put into operation. The House will remember that Clause 5 is the Clause which gives power to the Board, subject to certain safeguards, to insist on certain extension or alterations of existing stations. Sub-section (2), with which we are now dealing, comes into operation only if, after an arbitrator has decided that the requirements of the Board are not unreasonable, the existing owners of the station refuse to carry them out. That is an event which
I hope will never happen, but, if it should happen, the Clause provides that the Minister may empower any authorised undertaker or other person to acquire the stations which the owners refuse to alter or extend, and only in the last resort is the Minister to authorise the Board to acquire such a station. The Mover of the Amendment desired that, wherever the existing owner refuses to carry out an alteration or extension, the Board itself is to be the person to operate. That is the difference of opinion between us. It follows, I think, from the difference of view which was indicated when we were discussing an earlier Clause, that to hon. Members opposite the desirable thing is that the Board shall, if possible, be the generating authority. Our view is that it is an undesirable thing, and that, the Board ought to be a controlling authority. It logically follows from that divergence of view that hon. Members opposite desire that the Board shall, if possible, acquire stations, and that we desire that they shall not, if it can be avoided. We think they can more efficiently carry out the duties imposed upon them if they remain, as we intend them to be, a controlling rather than an operating authority.

Mr. HARDIE: The right hon. and learned Gentleman says that it is largely a question of opinion between the two sides, but does he not think that it is more a question of fact? If you take the returns, you will find that the municipal generating stations are better than the privately-owned stations.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My view is that it is a difference of political principle between the two sides. I do not think it is true to say that all the municipal stations are better than private stations. Some of the best stations are owned by the municipalities and some by private companies. There are some instances where municipal stations are as good as any in the country, and there are some privately-owned stations which are as good as any in the country; but I do not think it has been very accurately worked out what is the exact proportion which the one bears to the other. Our view, rightly or wrongly, is that this Board should be a controlling authority,
to control the supply of electricity by the method which we have outlined, and that it is only in the last resort, which in our opinion will never happen, that the Board should have power to acquire or operate stations.

Sir JOHN SIMON: In the event of this Clause having to come into operation, and the Minister of Transport having, as the Clause now stands, to empower some other authorised undertaker, company, or person to operate, might not that other authorised undertaker be a municipality?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think I said so. I tried to make it clear when I said any private or public authority which is now an authorised undertaker. The difference between the two sides is that hon. Members opposite desire, if the existing owner will not carry out the alterations or extensions which have been approved by the arbitrator, that then the Board should acquire and operate the station, whereas our view is that the Board ought not to be an operating authority, but a controlling authority, and it ought only to have power to acquire or operate the station if all other means of obtaining a supply have proved impossible.

Sir J. SIMON: If I follow the Amendment rightly, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman has explained it to the Committee, the effect of adopting it would be to make it impossible for a possibly extremely efficient municipality in the neighbourhood to extend its operations by supplying the adjoining area.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It would make it impossible for an extremely efficient municipality in the neighbourhood to acquire this particular station, the owners of which refuse to carry out an Order. It does not affect the distribution of electricity. The distributing power would remain exactly the same. It is only a question who shall acquire and subsequently operate a particular station, the owners of which will not carry out an Order. Our view is that it is not desirable that we should make it necessary that the Board itself should acquire a station the moment an existing owner will not carry out an Order, but that the Board should first go to other undertakers or persons, and only, when
such cannot be found, in the last resort itself be the authority to acquire. That is a clean cut difference of opinion I quite appreciate the point of view of hon. Members opposite, but they will not be surprised if, consistently with the view I have endeavoured to advocate upstairs and in this House, I say I am unable to accept the Amendment.

Mr. ATTLEE: I think the House should look very closely at this Clause, and see what is really the principle we are sanctioning. It may be true that it is a remote contingency that is contemplated by Sub-section (2), but you are setting up a Board largely outside the control of this House, and you are empowering the Minister by Order to take away the property of certain persons and give it to some other persons. We on this side are often accused of spoliation, robbery, exploitation, and so forth, but hon. Members opposite are certainly more extreme than we are, because, while we propose to take in certain circumstances private property and transfer it into the hands of the community, they go further and propose to seize private property and hand it over, not to local authorities or public authorities, but to any authorised undertaker, company, or person. They can, under these circumstances, seize property belonging to a municipality, fix a price, and empower some individual to take that property away. That is an extremely large power to give, even in such a remote contingency as this may be under Clause 5, Sub-section (2). I am not at all a supporter—

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley): Would the hon. Gentleman object to the generating station being handed over to joint electricity authority?

Mr. ATTLEE: Not in the least. My whole point is that we consider that the owner should hand it over to a public authority. That is a different matter from the transfer of property between individuals in the arbitrary manner proposed by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and his friends. Upstairs we did move that this power should be given in order to meet a justifiable point put by the Attorney-General, because you might have a perfectly efficient under-
taking, but there is something more than efficiency. There are efficient undertakings in this country, but we have no faith with regard to the question whether they are going to exploit the community, and we believe, when you are having a reorganisation of this sort, and when you are putting in a pretty drastic power like this in order to get a national coordination, the taking away of the property should only be done in order to transfer it to a public authority. We endeavoured upstairs to put in a public authority, but that was defeated, and now we say "if you will not trust the public authorities, then trust the Board," which more or less is a public authority. We think that it is a very laborious process that is being set up, this idea that in every case where the Board wants to take action it has to go running round to see if it can get somebody else to act instead of acting for itself.
The broad line on which the Attorney-General has opposed the Amendment is that the Government are against public ownership. If you look at the Bill you will see that they are only partially against public ownership. They are willing that the Board should own transmission lines, but they want to stop at that point. They do not want it to control and own generating stations. They seem to think that ownership of transmission lines will give sufficient power to the Board. But, if the Board is to be effective, let us give it a little more power. Even those who do not believe in public ownership, if they will carefully study the Bill, will. I think, see the necessity for giving the Board more power. Instead of invariably postponing the Board and making it come second, let the Board act itself. Let the Board have an equal share. As it is, the Board have always to go running round. Not only must they go to other authorised undertakers in the immediate vicinity, but they must go to every authorised undertaker in the country, to every company, and, as far as I can see, to every person, to try and find someone before they can act themselves. That means that they will have to take a plebiscite of the whole of the country to see if there be not someone who will do the job before they can act themselves. It is a ridiculous provision to put in the Bill, and our Amendment is
thoroughly justified both on the grounds of principle and of the efficiency of the Bill.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: The hon. Member has greatly overstated the case, even from the exaggerated point of view which I know he endeavours to represent in the House. If he will read the words, he will see that they say "the Minister of Transport may by order." It is not even necessarily compelled to approach any one of these authorities; it is entirely in the option of the Minister of Transport, and he would then, under the circumstances, should they arise, have to consider whether the Board were equipped in a manner whereby they could efficiently operate a generating station, or whether there was an existing authority, either a municipality, a joint electricity authority—which automatically becomes an authorised undertaking—or a company with a thoroughly efficient organisation to whom they might entrust the operation of the station feeling that the best results would be achieved by entrusting it to one of those authorities rather than that they themselves, a new-created Board with perhaps no staff at their disposal for such a purpose, should operate the station.

Mr. ATTLEE: Would the hon. Member say where in this Clause it says that the Board must only give it to a thoroughly equipped undertaker? It has to give it to any authorised undertaker, whether thoroughly equipped or not, before it can act.

Me. BALFOUR: The answer is that the Board, if on acquiring the station, were convinced that their own organisation was the best equipped for operating would go no further, but if they had not the equipment they would naturally turn to the authority best equipped economically and efficiently to operate the station. In passing, I would say that there are Amendments on the Paper to put certain matters into the hands of the joint electricity authorities. The hon. Member, in answer to an interruption by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, said he certainly would not object if this was put into the hands of a joint electricity authority.

Mr. ATTLEE: Any public authority.

Mr. BALFOUR: A joint electricity authority is sufficient for my argument. It illustrates the absolutely hopeless ground upon which the hon. Member has based his case. As far as I know, not one joint electricity authority, up to date, has a staff equipped for the purpose of operating a generating station. The hon. Gentleman is quite content with the Minister having the option to place it in the hands of a joint electricity authority, but up to date no such authority has ever been tried and tested, at any rate, so far as operating a. generating station is concerned. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) is quite satisfied, provided it is an authority of the kind in which he, I presume, genuinely believes. It has to be one of those associations with which he himself is identified and which he believes should be set up in order to improve the supply of electricity. No doubt the hon. Member himself is quite convinced that his arguments in this respect are sound, but they have not yet stood the test of time nor have they been proved to people of experience in this country.

Mr. R. MORRISON: In reply to the hon. Member who has just spoken I suggest that it would be better for this House not to load the dice against any particular form of ownership in this Bill, but to leave the Board a considerable amount of freedom in making decisions concerning the taking over of generating stations. It is desirable that they should be able to make the best business bargain for the nation without compelling them, in the words of the Attorney-General, to exhaust every other means before turning to public ownership. I think the Attorney-General put the matter admirably. The position is perfectly clear. I do not think there has been any discussion which has put the two points of view on this subject so clearly as this discussion has done and I am glad that it is being conducted with perfect good feeling. As the Attorney-General has said, the attitude of the Government is that they are opposed to public ownership and we are in favour of public ownership. As far as I can gather, however, the Government, while opposed to public ownership, are not opposed to public interference. We say that public interference is not good enough, that is not going to
produce results and that it would be far better to do the job properly while we are at it and to have public ownership and control.
The Attorney-General said every means of securing private enterprise ought to be exhausted and that public ownership should be the last resort. We take the opposite position. We heard speeches from the Back Benches opposite all day long yesterday—some of us listened to them—dealing with the alleged abuses contained in this Bill. We heard that it was unfair to private enterprise and that it infringed the liberty of the people and all that sort of thing. But the power which is now proposed compels the Board not only to take over other people's property but to hand that property on to private enterprise and to companies. Right hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite have been twitted time after time with bringing in a Socialist Measure. This is not Socialism. It is simply using State resources in order to bolster up inefficient private enterprise. We on this side are often told by hon. Members, who were busy all day yesterday attacking their own Front Bench, that the objection to our ideas is that we want to take property away from its present owners and use it for State purposes. Even the wildest Member on these benches has never advocated taking private property away from certain people in order to hand it over to other people—in order to turn it into other people's private property. We have always stood for public ownership and control. There is an old saying, and a true one, which, I think, is attributed to Josh Billings—
The man who succeeds in life is not the man who never makes mistakes, but the man who never makes the same mistake twice.
By this proposal the Government are going to make the same mistake twice. When they find that a generating station, for inefficiency or some other cause, has to be taken over by the Board, instead of putting it under public control and keeping it there, they proceed to repeat the former mistake by taking steps to see that it is put back into private ownership. We hear a lot about fair play in this matter. If our proposal were adopted, and if these words were
deleted, it would ensure fair play from the business point of view. Leaving politics out of consideration altogether, it would give the Board a chance of taking all the factors into consideration. As at present worded, the Bill would prevent the Board coming to a free decision, and from the business point of view, quite apart from the political point of view, we desire to see this Board, who are to be the servants of the nation, placed in a position to make fair and free decisions as to the best business bargain for the nation. If the Board is to be composed of business people, as we are told it will be, they should be left unhampered to weigh up all the advantages and disadvantages, and if there are so many tremendous advantages in operation and control by private companies as we are led to believe, surely the Board will be able to see them. Therefore I support the omission of these words.

Mr. HARRIS: I think it would be a pity if we were to treat this discussion as one merely concerning the merits of municipal as against private enterprise. As a supporter of municipal enterprise I always felt that a monopoly of this kind should, as far as possible, be under public control, and I regret that there are so many cases in which public control has been parted with and in which the supply of electricity instead of being vested in a public authority has been vested in a private company. It seems to me, however, that the matter which we are now discussing involves a rather narrower point. Under this scheme, as I understand it, certain stations are to be selected as super-stations. The Government, or rather the new Board, may have considerable difficulty in persuading, not only companies, but local authorities to allow their stations to be selected as stations not with limited local duties, but with national importance. The larger number of the present stations are under public authorities and there are far more local authorities supplying electricity than private companies. According to the last figures I have been able to get the capital invested in generation by local authorities is nearly £50,000,000 and the amount invested in companies is only £24,000,000. I have had some experience of trying to persuade local authorities to come into a joint scheme, and they are
just as loth to part with their little power and their little importance as private companies. As the Minister of Transport knows, the delay in bringing the London Joint Electricity Authority into existence was not due only to the opposition of the companies. That was bad enough, but another difficulty arose from the jealousies and parochial feelings of many of the local authorities.
I am persuaded that the only satisfactory solution of this problem is to carry out the original scheme in the Bill of 1919 and to set up joint electricity authorities. In London it will be generally agreed there is not likely to be any difficulty in this matter. In spite of what the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) says, the London Joint Electricity Authority now, after many years, has commenced to function. The fact that it is not more effective at present is largely due to the skill, ingenuity and craft of the hon. Member for Hampstead himself. I give him that compliment. He is the arch-obstructor there just as he is the arch-obstructor here and he has shown great ingenuity in seeking to prevent the Joint Electricity Authority from coming into existence. Unfortunately, this Clause is not open to amendment on those lines, but I submit that the right way to get over the difficulty of defaulting authorities, whether companies or local authorities, is to set up joint electricity authorities throughout the country and to carry out the original proposals of the 1919 Bill, using compulsion where necessary. Then we would not have the unsatisfactory position of this new Board having to do something which is not its proper function. Its function is not to act as a kind of central bureaucracy running stations all over the country with a large staff. The proper thing is to run those stations with joint electricity authorities and I believe that this view is held by many of my hon. Friends.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: May I point out to the hon. Member who has just spoken that although there is no provision in this Clause for setting up joint electricity authorities there is an Amendment on the Paper which will have the effect of giving the first opportunity to a joint electricity authority, where one exists, of acquiring a station. Of course, if the present Amendment were carried that step would be impossible: otherwise
we propose later on to ask the House to accept an Amendment on the lines I have indicated.

Mr. GARDNER: I am opposed to the Government's attitude on this question for a reason which has not yet been mentioned. There is a very grave danger in the Clause as it stands, because past experience has taught us that some municipalities will not carry out legislation enacted by Parliament. We have had the case of housing and of public health and of other matters. Under this Clause any successful publicly owned electricity undertaking, controlled by a Tory municipality, might decide not to accept the terms of arbitration and some of its friends might manipulate matters so that it could be handed over quite easily to a very inefficient company in an adjoining area. That to me is a very grave danger—I think more grave than people realise. I am not accusing the Government of deliberately engineering this Clause in the way I have just indicated, but this is a question of giving a power to appoint one person to administer the affairs of another person. Many Members are aware that there is a well-known trader in Oxford Street who believes he is the greatest trader in the world, and who thinks that his own particular methods are the best. If this kind of legislation were applied to traders generally, it could be quite easily arranged that that particular trader should be selected by some of his opponents as the authority, and the whole of his business and his individuality—the individuality of which the Tory party is so proud—might be taken away from him and handed over, without his consent., to others. We are only asking here for something which is in the public interest and the public interest should be paramount. We believe the time has arrived when we ought to have a forward movement in regard to electricity. When I go abroad and see the wonderful equipment in other countries, and the low cost of production, I look with alarm to the possibility of this new Board tampering with and manœuvring round inefficient companies and then searching for some other persons who may be equally inefficient. It would be wiser in the interests of all concerned to adopt the Amendment.

Mr. NAYLOR: I do not think the Attorney - General in opposing this Amendment was quite as logical as he
usually is. He seemed to think that the Mover was throwing out a challenge on the question of the collective ownership of generating stations. All the Amendment seeks to do is to make it clear that the Board should have the opportunity of taking over generating stations where the owners of generating stations are not prepared to adopt their undertakings to the requirements of the Board. That seems to be a simple business issue and not a question of collectivism versus private enterprise. Where you have an undertaking run by private enterprise which is not prepared to carry out the conditions laid down by the Board, why should the Board be obliged to advertise for some other company or person willing to carry on the work of the undertaking which has expressed its unwillingness to follow the decisions of the Board.
Are they likely to be successful? If the original owners are not prepared to carry out the Regulations of the Board, on what ground is it assumed that the new company or the new person who is prepared to take over the generating station and conform to the conditions of the Board is going to do so with any greater success than the original owners of the station?
The learned Attorney-General seemed to think it was very unlikely that this Clause would operate. He thought it a very remote possibility, in the first place, that any owner of a generating station would object to the Regulations of the Board. Then he thought that, in the event of such an owner objecting, it would be quite easy to find another company or person who would be prepared to do what the original owners of the station were not prepared to do. I fail to follow him there. How can he justify that opinion? If the original owners, with all the advantages of their knowledge and experience, are not prepared to allow their station to be used in conformity with the Regulations to be issued by the Board, is it likely that any other company or person would be in a position to do so? Surely the Government have given their own case away when they say that there is a possibility of their not being able to secure some other company to take over the station. The Clause lays it down that, in the event of no other company or person being found, the Board shall take
over the station, but is not the principle in that Clause given away by the provision that, in the event of failure to find a substitute, the Government, through the Board, will take over the generating station? If it is such a remote possibilty, why do the Government seek to protect themselves by allowing the Board to interfere in that event? I suggest that this Amendment is fully justified on business grounds alone, and is not merely a question of Collectivism versus private enterprise.

Mr. VIANT: I feel that the opposition to this Amendment has been unduly stressed, in the sense that the Amendment does not ask that the Board shall exercise this power, but simply that powers might be conferred upon the Board in order that they may use them should the occasion arise. The opposition has spoken as if the Amendment was a definite request that the Board must exercise these powers. The spirit that has moved the opposition to this Amendment is evidently one of anxiety. They are rather anxious lest, when this scheme is brought into operation, the shortcomings of private enterprise may become so manifest that there will be a general demand for these powers to be exercised. I feel that the Government are not fair to this Bill or to the scheme, because it is quite conceivable that the Board of Control, the Commissioners, will be confronted with a set of circumstances in which they will find that they have not adequate powers to make the scheme a success, by virtue of the fact that opposition, already present, has become stronger in the country and is impeding the operation of the scheme. I think the Government ought to be fair to the Board that is to be set up under this Bill, and give it the powers that are necessary to ensure that it shall be an undoubted success. Those powers do not obtain now, and this Amendment does at least give a remnant of power that can be used as a last resort. It is not fair to the scheme or to the country, and it is not giving the country the guarantee that the Government are prepared to see that nothing stands in the way of the successful carrying out of this scheme.

Question put. "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes. 225: Noes, 84.

Division No. 450.]
AYES.
[4.37 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Forrest, W.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive


Albery, Irving James
Fraser, Captain Ian
Murchison, C. K.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Frece, Sir Walter de
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Applin, Colonel R. V. K.
Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Gates, Percy
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hon. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld.)


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Goff, Sir Park
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Grace, John
Nuttall, Ellis


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Grant, Sir J. A.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Pielou, D. P.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Power, Sir John Cecil


Bennett, A. J.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton


Bethel, A.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Preston, William


Blundell, F. N.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & shetland)
Price, Major C. W. M.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Hanbury, C.
Radford, E. A.


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Harrison, G. J. C.
Raine, W.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Hartington, Marquess of
Ramsden, E.


Braithwaite, A. N.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Reid Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Briggs, J. Harold
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Remer, J. R.


Briscoe, Richard George
Hawke, John Anthony
Remnant, Sir James


Brittain, Sir Harry
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.


Brocklebank, C E. R.
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)


Buckingham, Sir H.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)


Bullock, Captain M.
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Ropner, Major L.


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Hills, Major John Walter
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.


Burman, J. B.
Hilton, Cecil
Sandeman, A. Stewart


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Sanders, Sir Robert A.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Sandon, Lord


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)


Campbell, E. T.
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Hopkins, J. W. W.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth.S.)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. Hackney, N.)
Skelton A. N.


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)


Chamberlain, Rt Hn. Sir J.A. (Birm.,W)
Hume, Sir G. H.
Smithers, Waldron


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Huntingfield, Lord
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hurd, Percy A.
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.


Chilcott, Sir Warden
Hurst, Gerald B.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Christle, J. A.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)


Churchill, Rt. Hon, Winston Spencer
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)


Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Steel, Major Samuel Strang


Clarry, Reginald George
Jacob, A. E.
Storry-Deans, R.


Clayton, G. C.
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jephcott, A. R.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Cooper, A. Duff
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Cope, Major William
Kindersley, Major G. M.
Tinne, J. A.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Waddington, R.


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Loder, J. de V.
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Looker, Herbert William
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Davies, Maj. Geo F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Lougher, L.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Davies, Dr. Vernon
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Dawson Sir Philip
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Wells, S. R.


Drewe, C.
Lynn, Sir R. J.
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Duckworth, John
Mac Andrew, Major Charles Glen
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Eden, Captain Anthony
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Wiggins, William Martin


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Elliot, Major Walter E.
Macintyre, Ian
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Elveden, Viscount
McLean, Major A.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


England, Colonel A.
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Wise, Sir Fredric


Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Malone, Major P. B.
Womersley, W. J.


Everard, W. Lindsay
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Margesson, Captain D.
Wood, Sir Kingsley (Woolwich, W.)


Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Fermoy, Lord
Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Fielden, E. B.
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.



Ford, Sir P. J.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Forestier-Walker, Sir L
Morris R. H.
Captain Lord Stanley and Captain Bowyer.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Batey, Joseph


Ammon, Charles George
Baker, Walter
Bromfield, William


Attlee, Clement Richard
Barr, J.
Bromley, J.




Buchanan, G.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Scrymgeour, E.


Charleton, H. C.
Kelly, W. T.
Scurr, John


Clowes, S.
Kennedy, T.
Sexton, James


Cluse, W. S.
Kenyon, Barnet
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Cove, W. G.
Lansbury, George
Sitch, Charles H.


Dalton, Hugh
Lawrence, Susan
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, F.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Lowth, T.
Stamford, T. W.


Day, Colonel Harry
Lunn, William
Taylor, R. A.


Dennison, R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Duncan, C.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Dunnico, H.
March, S
Thurtle, Ernest


Gardner, J. P.
Maxton, James
Townend, A. E.


Gibbins, Joseph
Montague, Frederick
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Gosling, Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Viant, S. P.


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Naylor, T. E.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Whiteley, W.


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Purcell, A. A.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Hardie, George D.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Hayday, Arthur
Riley, Ben
Windsor, Walter


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Ritson, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hirst, G. H.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)



Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—


Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Salter, Dr. Alfred
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 6, line 36, after the word "Act," to insert the words
but where the generating, station is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted, that authority shall be given first opportunity to acquire the station.
I apologise for moving the Amendment in a somewhat different form from that on the Amendment Paper. The object is the same, but the wording at the end is different, for drafting purposes. This Clause and the next deal, inter alia, with the contingencies under which the Board first acquire, and, secondly, operate, and, thirdly, provide a generating station, together with the safeguards which it has been thought right to attach to those possibilities. A little further down on the Amendment Paper, the Government have an Amendment proposing to give the first option to a joint electricity authority to operate the station after it has been taken over by the Board. I hope the House will agree, that if it be a good thing to give a joint electricity authority, where that authority exists, the first choice of operating such a station, it is illogical not to give it the first choice of acquiring such a station, where the necessity for acquiring a station arises. I venture to hope the House will agree that this Amendment is an improvement on the Bill as it stands, and that the Government will be able to see their way to accept it.

Mr. STORRY-DEANS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Sir JOSEPH NALL: On a point of Order. May I ask whether the two Amendments to the Attorney-General's Amendment later on would not be better moved as Amendments to the Amendment now before the House? I do not know whether it is still intended to take the Attorney-General's Amendment, or whether this takes the place of it?

Mr. SPEAKER: It does not take the place of the Attorney-General's Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I shall move my Amendment in due course.

Colonel ASHLEY: It will be within the recollection of all those who were members of the Committee, that during the discussions there was inserted a proviso that where the working of one of these stations has to be provided for when there is a joint electricity authority operating in the area, that authority shall be given the first chance to operate that station. I think that was a sound Amendment, as the joint electricity authority comprises and represents in that area all the interests concerned, municipal and private. That being so, it seems to me logical that the Government should accept the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven (Mr. H. Hudson), and, indeed, I see that other Members on the Government side of the House are in agreement with my hon. Friend, not only because he has got a seconder, but also because there are six names against an exactly similar Amendment drafted by my hon. Friend the Member for
South-East Essex (Mr. Looker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton). After exhaustive discussion upstairs the Committee having come to the conclusion that in the case of working, the first option should be given where a joint electricity authority exists. Therefore, we should accept this Amendment, and say that where there is a joint electricity authority, that authority should be given the first opportunity of acquiring such a station, as a matter of practical politics. As indicated by the Attorney-General, I do not think either of these contingencies will arise, but we must visualise what might happen.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I am surprised at my right hon. Friend falling so easily into the trap so cunningly laid for him by hon. Members on the other side in using the hon. Member, who, I think an hon. Member opposite described as "the Government submarine." That is not my particular object in rising. I would like, before assent is given to this Amendment, to hear from someone speaking in authority on the Front Bench—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] I have not the slightest intention of suggesting that my right hon. Friend is not in authority. I simply had in mind that my right hon. Friend had already spoken on this Amendment, and could not speak a second time. I would like the House to have some information as to the work done by joint electricity authorities in connection with the ownership of power stations, as to whether the joint electricity authorities at the present moment are equipped, and as to whether it is right that this House should in an Amendment of this kind, in the case of authorities, which are largely yet to be created, which are to be authorities of the nature of joint boards, which, in the past, have not proved successful, make a special exception in this Clause. I think my request is quite a reasonable one, that the House should be informed as to the reasons why the Government wish to make a special exception, to reserve powers of delegation to this particular type of authority, a type of authority which, I think, nobody could say has been tried, tested and proved. Alternatively, if any of the hon. Members whose names appear against this Amendment or the following Amendment, can give the House any information as to why
this power of delegation should be specially reserved to this type of authority, they would go a long way to remove my doubt. I know no place in the country where a particular authority is entitled to be picked out for this special duty. This is only a repetition of what has gone on in the case of so many Amendments. I ask for something to show that we are doing that which will be of benefit to the public. It is quite immaterial to me what type of authority there is, but we should have some authoritative and precise statement which would entitle us to accept an Amendment of this kind.

Sir DOUGLAS NEWTON: I think that some of the questions which have been asked by the hon. Member who has just sat down are not going to be very difficult to answer. This Amendment is warmly supported by the Municipal Corporations Association, and that body, and municipal corporations who are undertakers, have invested over two-thirds of the total capital now invested in the electrical industry. Therefore, I hardly feel that their competence can be justly challenged. Already powers are being given to joint electricity authorities to operate, and, therefore, presumably, those powers already appear in the Bill and, presumably, they are quite competent to deal with that situation. I would like further to urge that the justification for the proposal is that the joint electricity authority, and the joint electricity authority alone, represents all the authorised undertakers in their district. Therefore, I am very glad that the right hon. Gentleman has accepted this Amendment.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for North Tottenham (Mr. R. Morrison), I think, was covered in the discussion we have had already. I do not know whether the hon. Member would wish to have a Division upon it?

Mr. R. MORRISON: I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out lines 11 to 15 inclusive.
While it is true as you, Mr. Speaker, say, that there was a discussion on this subject, one or two sentences have got to be said to point out the difference between the proviso I am endeavouring
to get deleted now, and the previous discussion. We have got to a stage where an authorised undertaker has failed to operate a selected station, and the Minister of Transport has decided that someone else has to acquire it, and he has finally made an Order for somebody else to acquire it. The next question is, who is going to operate it? The Attorney-General's point that we have got to exhaust every means to get private ownership to do it before coming to public ownership, has already been dealt with. That may be argued as the main reason for resisting this Amendment of mine, namely, to delete the words
Provided that the Board shall not themselves operate such a generating station unless they satisfy the Electricity Commissioners that they are unable to enter into an arrangement with any authorised undertakers or other company or person to operate it on reasonable terms:
It might be argued against the deletion of these words that in Committee the Government accepted an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) and a similar Amendment to that just accepted with regard to the ownership of generating stations, that the offer should first of all be through a joint electricity authority. It may be urged that that mitigates the point I am endeavouring to make, but that makes it all the more important that these words should be left out. They do not seem to serve any useful object in this Bill, except to load the dice against the Board, as I have already said. We on this side are anxious, no matter how often hon. Members on the other side may accuse us of looking at this merely from a political point of view, to look at it from a business point of view, and we are anxious that the Board shall, if faced with this situation, have the opportunity of making a fair decision from a business point of view, unhampered by any Clause such as this. The only reason for putting in these words is pure political prejudice. It would be a much more honest arrangement to omit these words altogether, so that when a contingency does arise, the Board may, from a purely business point of view, consider what is the best bargain they can make from the point of view of the nation, and not have to hawk round these generating
stations to companies and individuals, and, finally, if nobody else will have anything to do with them, they will do it themselves. They want to be in a position in which the dice is not loaded against them.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. WALLHEAD: It seems to me that by the deletion of these words rather freer powers will be placed in the hands of the Board than if the words remain in the Clause. It is apparent from what has been said by those interested in maintaining private enterprise and private control that the Board is not going to get very energetic assistance from private enterprise. The deletion of these words will give the Board greater powers, and from a business point of view I would add my word to what has been said by the Mover of the Amendment about the Government arming itself with a little more power than they would have if these words were allowed to remain in the Clause.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am sure hon. Members opposite will acquit me of any discourtesy if I do not go at length into the arguments which have been largely traversed already. It is suggested that we are loading the dice against the Board. If by that it is meant that we are making it as unlikely as possible that the Board shall be a generating authority—an operating authority—then I agree. That is what we want to do. But one reason why we want these words in the Bill is because we think it important that when we are inviting people to become members of the Board we should be able to make it clear to them that they are to become members of a body that is extremely unlikely ever to become a generating authority, but that they will be members of a body that is a controlling body. It might affect them in coming to a decision. We should be able to make it quite clear to anyone accepting a place on the Board that that is the position.

Mr. R. MORRISON: Is not that attitude going to force the Board into a position that they may have to make on behalf of the nation an unbusinesslike bargain because of the bias being put in the Bill?

Mr. HARRIS: I was not in favour of the previous Amendment because I thought that went rather far. It seems to me that these words in the Bill are rather stringent. The Board is to hawk a station all round the country to try to find a buyer. The Board will be in a very weak position. There is to be no possible person in the country, or undertaking or authority, that is prepared to carry out the station. I think it can be conceived that some of these companies will be prepared to drive a very hard bargain. They may seek to get this new responsibility under as severe terms as possible. It will put the Board in a very weak position if all the authorities who undertake this duty of running a selected station will know that the Board is weighted against it. The Board has to prove that there is no possible company that will carry out this responsibility. I think that the Clause as worded in the provision earlier on in the Clause will give the Board all the power it wants and

the Members opposite all the guarantee they want that the Board shall not become owners of stations except in the contingency that there is no proper authority to carry them out.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The difference between the previous words and these is that we are dealing with two wholly different things. The previous part of the Clause dealt with acquisition of generating stations, and we are now dealing with the operation of the station after it has been acquired by the Board. In answer to the other question put to me, the Board is only precluded from operating themselves if they are able to satisfy the Electricity Commissioners that no one else will operate it on reasonable terms.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 233; Noes, 87.

Division No. 451.]
AYES.
[5.8 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Christle, J. A.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Hanbury, C.


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Albery, Irving James
Clarry, Reginald George
Harrison, G. J. C.


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Clayton, G. C.
Hartington, Marquess of


Applin, Colonel R. V. K
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hawke, John Anthony


Atkinson, C.
Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootle)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.


Banks, Reginald Mitchell
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Davies, Ellis (Denbigh, Denbigh)
Hills, Major John Waller


Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.)
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)
Hilton, Cecil


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bennett, A. J.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)


Bethel, A.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hope, Sir Harry (Forfar)


Blundell, F. N.
Drewe, C.
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Boothby, R. J. G.
Duckworth, John
Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities)


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Eden, Captain Anthony
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. Hackney, N.)


Bowater, Colonel Sir T. Vansittart
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Braithwaite, A. N.
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Huntingfield, Lord


Briggs, J. Harold
England, Colonel A.
Hurd, Percy A.


Briscoe, Richard George
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Hurst, Gerald B.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Everard, W. Lindsay
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Falle, Sir Bertram G.
Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)


Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Jacob, A. E.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Fermoy, Lord
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fielden, E. B.
Jephcott, A. R.


Bullock, Captain M.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Burgoyne, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Alan
Forrest, W.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Burman, J. B.
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Kidd, J. (Linlithgow)


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Fraser, Captain Ian
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Frece, Sir Walter de
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Fremantle, Lt.-Col. Francis E.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Campbell, E. T.
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Gates, Percy
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)


Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)
Goff, Sir Park
Looker, Herbert William


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Grace, John
Lougher, L.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord H. (Ox. Univ.)
Grant, Sir J. A.
Lowe, Sir Francis William


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir. J. A. (Birm., W.)
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Lynn, Sir R. J.


MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Remer, J. R.
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell-


Macintyre, Ian
Remnant, Sir James
Tinne, J. A.


McLean, Major A.
Rentoul, G. S.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Macmillan, Captain H.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Vaugham-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Macquisten, F. A.
Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Waddington, R.


Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Malone, Major P. B.
Ropner, Major L.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Warrender, Sir Victor


Margesson, Captain D.
Sandeman, A. Stewart
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Mason, Lieut.-Colonel Glyn K.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw-
Sandon, Lord
Wells, S. R.


Mitchell, W. Foot (Saffron Walden)
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Wheler, Major Sir Granville C. H.


Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Shaw, Capt. Walter (Wilts, Westb'y)
White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple-


Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wiggins, William Martin


Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Skelton, A. N.
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Murchison, C. K.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)


Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Smithers, Waldron
Wise, Sir Fredric


Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrst'ld.)
Somerville. A. A. (Windsor)
Wolmer, Viscount


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Womersley, W. J.


Nuttall, Ellis
Sprot, Sir Alexander
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Owen, Major G.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Wood, E. (Chest'r, Stalyb'dge & Hyde)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Woodcock, Colonel H C.


Power, Sir John Cecil
Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Preston, William
Storry-Deans, R.
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Stuart, Crichton-, Lord C.



Radford, E. A.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Raine, W.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser
Major Cope and Captain Bowyer.


Ramsden, E
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Salter, Dr. Alfred


Ammon, Charles George
Harris, Percy A.
Scrymgeour, E.


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Scurr, John


Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Sexton, James


Baker, Walter
Hirst, G. H.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Sitch, Charles H.


Batey, Joseph
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Kelly, W. T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Briant, Frank
Kennedy, T.
Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip


Bromfield, William
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Bromley, J
Lawrence, Susan
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Lee, F.
Taylor, R. A.


Clowes, S.
Lowth, T.
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Cluse, W. S.
Lunn, William
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro., W.)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Cove, W. G.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Thurtle, Ernest


Dalton, Hugh
March, S.
Townend, A. E.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Maxton, James
Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
Montague, Frederick
Viant, S. P.


Day, Colonel Harry
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Dennison, R.
Naylor, T. E.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney


Duncan, C.
Paling, W.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.


Dunnico, H.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, J. P.
Potts, John S.
Williams, T (York, Don Valley)


Gibbins, Joseph
Purcell, A. A.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Gosling, Harry
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Windsor, Walter


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Riley, Ben
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Groves, T.
Ritson, J.



Grundy, T. W.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Saklatvala, Shapurji
Mr. B. Smith and Mr. Hayes.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): Colonel Ashley.

Sir J. NALL: May I call your attention to the Amendment standing on the Order Paper in my name—
Page 7, line 12, leave out 'satisfy the Electricity Commissioners that they.'
This is one of the Amendments that were not covered by the discussion yesterday on the new Clause. I would like to know if it could be taken now.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I was under the impression, from Mr. Speaker's notes, that that had been settled. In any event, I think the hon. Member ought to have raised the point when I put the last Amendment, because, having the impression I had, I did not save it.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 7, line 15, to leave out the words from the word "terms" to the end of the Clause.
It is proposed to insert there the words
and where the generating station is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted, the Board shall first endeavour to enter into arrangements with that authority to operate the station.
This is only a drafting Amendment, but it puts the intention in rather better form, and carries out what was arranged in Committee upstairs.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendment proposed: In page 7, line 15, after the word "terms," to insert the words
and where the generating station is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted, the Board shall first endeavour to enter into arrangements with that authority to operate the station."—[Colonel Ashley.]

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "constituted," to insert the words
or in the area of supply of a power company.
Taking the country over, joint electricity authorities such as those referred to in the main Amendment either do not exist or are not functioning in the capacity contemplated in that Amendment. I think there are only three of these bodies at the present time, and one has now handed over its effective duties to the power company in the area. There is, I fear, some misapprehension in the minds of a good many Members of the House as to these joint electricity authorities. An hon. Member who has left the House spoke strongly just now in support of these bodies being entrusted with duties of this kind, but the fact is that up to date we have no experience to indicate how they will be able to carry them out. They exist in only three instances, and the House has had no figures or facts placed before it to show how they will function, or whether they will be an advantage. The House should bear in mind that the areas of joint authorities will frequently include the areas of statutory power companies. Statutory power companies differ from even the larger municipal undertakings in that they exist under Statute for the purpose of covering large areas of territory and delivering bulk supplies in that area, whereas muni-
cipal undertakings exist primarily to distribute electricity in their own locality. That being the case, if it is felt that a joint electricity authority ought to have some special precedence in regard to the operation of this Clause, it would appear to be only fair, as from an operative point of view it would be much more convenient, that where a power company exists it should enjoy similar precedence as regards the opportunity of functioning on behalf of the Board. The larger areas of the country where power companies exist are obviously suitable for the application of the proposal I am now making to the House.
Hon. Members ought to know how this matter came to be raised at all on this Clause. It was moved from the other side, where, as we well know, there is a great regard for the virtues of the joint authorities, though so far these bodies have not really functioned, and it was opposed by practically half the Members on the Government side. As a matter of fact, of the Government Members on the Committee, 16 voted for the proposal and 13 voted against it, and it was really carried in Committee by the party opposite, from whom it had emanated, and I think it is fair to say that they moved it because they hate a company performing any duty.

Mr. WALLHEAD: No, but we think the companies are inefficient.

Sir J. NALL: That is a matter of argument. Efficiency and inefficiency can be found alike among municipal and company undertakings. What I am suggesting to the House is that we should not be led off by the quite fallacious doctrines of the other side, which have not been tested in practice. The facts as they exist to-day indicate that in a number of instances the existing statutory undertaking will perform these functions most economically. If joint authorities have to be created for the purpose of carrying out these powers, or are created a little in advance in anticipation of cases arising under this Section, administration and operation cannot be so efficient, because they will be in the hands of an entirely new organisation. I put this proposal to the House merely as an argument for efficiency and sound administration. Everyone knows that a large undertaking such as a generating
station is much better managed by a responsible authority having the management of it within its own hands—much more efficiently managed than it would be by a joint committee composed of many bodies with conflicting interests. On grounds of efficiency as well as of fairness to those who already have statutory obligations imposed upon them, it is only fair that this addition should be made to the proposed Amendment. I think that possibly a case might be made out for some of the larger municipalities being given a similar preference, but I do not quite see how that addition is to be made under the words we are now considering.

Mr. DENNIS HERBERT: I beg to second the Amendment.
Where these joint electricity authorities have been established, it appears to have been recognised as a general principle that if there is a big power company within the area, that big power company must be, for practical purposes, excluded from the area of the joint authority; to put it in another way, the powers of the joint electricity authority are delegated by that authority to the power company. So far has that been carried that it has been found necessary to regard the area of a power company coming into touch with the general electricity authority as being a separate area. If that be so, surely it is only reasonable that the power company should have the same privileges which it is proposed to give to the joint electricity authority, which, as a rule, is no more than a method of co-ordinating smaller undertakings than those of big power companies.

Colonel ASHLEY: I was rather sorry that my hon. Friend who moved this Amendment introduced a certain amount of prejudice into his speech. He told us that this particular Amendment which we are moving was moved by an hon. Gentleman who sat on the opposite side in Committee. I do not mind from what quarter an Amendment comes if it be a sound one. I am sure the House would not wish to turn down any Amendment without first considering it upon its merits. The Amendment put forward by the Government deals with the operation of those stations and provides that a preference should be given
to the Joint Electricity Authority set up under the Act of 1919 and representing all the interests in the electricity district. It seems to me that that is precisely the body to which a preference should be given.
Now the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) comes forward, and moves an Amendment providing that an equal preference should be given to a power company when you are in the area of supply of that company. The power company, of course, is an excellent institution, but it does not represent the interests of all those on the Joint Electricity Authority. Therefore what my hon. Friend is asking is that, in the case of a power company not representing all the interests in the district, the Board shall first endeavour to enter into arrangements with that company. If you include everybody in this way, where does the preference come in? Both on the grounds of smooth working and justice I think this Amendment cannot possibly be accepted, and I ask the House to reject it so as to leave the proposal plainly that, in the case of certain stations, the Joint Electricity Authority existing at the time of the passing of the Act should have a preference.

Mr. BALFOUR: I am glad to hear the last sentence of my right hon. Friend, because I intended to move an Amendment to that effect. I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has anticipated my intention, because it will go a long way to satisfy our objection. We have heard a good deal of contradiction in argument from the Front Bench in the course of the last hour and a-half. The Attorney-General, in replying to a speech from the benches opposite, said:
We believe we can get a more efficient operation if these stations are in private hands.
I took the words down, and I think that is exactly what the Attorney-General said. The Minister of Transport has just pointed out that the first option has been given to a body which is not connected with private enterprise, but is a joint body known as the Joint Electricity Authority. That shows the difficulty we find ourselves in at the present moment, because we are constantly faced with contradictory arguments and we do not know what line of conduct we should adopt in our criticisms of this Measure.
I do not think the Attorney-General disputes the words I have just quoted. I will say no more provided my right hon. Friend is prepared to accept words to that effect. It was my intention to move to insert in the Government Amendment, after the word "constituted," the words "at the date of the passing of this Act." I think the Minister of Transport said he would agree to this Amendment, and, if that be so, that will meet our major objection on this point.

Colonel ASHLEY: I did not say so.

Mr. BALFOUR: I thought the right hon. Gentleman said he would agree to the insertion of those words. If that is not so, I am glad to be corrected, and we are now thrown back to a full discussion of this Amendment. If I am in order, I should like to move now as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, after the word "constituted," to insert the words "at the passing of this Act."

Mr. DEPUTY - SPEAKER: That Amendment to the Amendment would not be in order until we have got rid of the words now before the House.

Mr. BALFOUR: All I want to make clear is that my right to move this Amendment is preserved.

Mr. ATTLEE: The hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) seems to take a great delight in attacking Joint Electricity Authorities, and he always endeavours, although he is singularly ineffective, to make them out to be labour bodies in order to wave the red flag before the Conservatives. When I moved this Amendment upstairs it was not moved as a party Amendment at all, but I moved it because I had been asked to do so by a conference of joint electricity authorities. The hon. Member for Hampstead thinks that we should always leave everything of this kind to the efficient power companies, but I would like to point out to him that as a rule a Joint Electricity Authority commands quite as much experience amongst its members as those undertakings with which the hon. Member for Hampstead is connected. The Joint Electricity Authorities represent all the various interests concerned, including the railway interests and so on, and they are quite as competent to carry on such a business as any of the companies formed by the hon. Member
for Hampstead. The hon. Member says that these authorities are new and quite untried. I do not think that when he goes round the City to form his companies he says, "We cannot subscribe to this undertaking because they have not got a start and are untried men." It is the constant habit of the hon. Member for Hampstead to sneer at Joint Electricity Authorities. I do not know whether it is a mere business prejudice against the members who compose those bodies or whether it is because he happens to be on the other side.
Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "constituted," to insert the words "at the date of the passing of this Act."
My object is to ensure that these powers shall not be entrusted to an authority of which we can have no possible knowledge at the time of the passing of this Act. The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) has thought fit to refer to me at some length, and he has suggested that I am animated by personal motives against the persons acting on these joint authorities. I can assure my hon. Friend that he is quite wrong, because I am not at all concerned with criticising the personality of a Joint Electricity Authority, and I am prepared to assume that the gentlemen serving on those bodies have been selected with special qualications and are entirely suited to discharge their duties. The hon. Member for Limehouse said that the Joint Electricity Authorities held a conference, but I would like to remind him that that conference consisted of the representatives of only three organisations.

Mr. ATTLEE: On the contrary, it consisted of representatives of all the Joint Electricity Authorities as well as other bodies, and 11 or 12 organisations were represented covering the greater part of the country.

Mr. BALFOUR: We are now dealing with constituted joint electricity authorities, and I would like to ask the hon. Member how many joint electricity authorities were represented at that conference.

Mr. ATTLEE: All of them.

Mr. BALFOUR: I am told that the number represented was only three, and no more, and of those three only one is conducting an active business. The North Wales electricity authority is the only joint electricity authority in active operation at the present time. I hope that all these authorities when they are created will function well and discharge their duties, but we cannot shut our eyes to the fact that these joint electricity authorities are to be drawn together by election and are to be drawn from the municipal authorities, the companies, and the representatives of various interests in the district. Theoretically that should prove an excellent method, but practically it does not do so. The hon. Member for Limehouse said in regard to the authority with which he is associated that he did not think a great deal of the company side of the business.

Mr. ATTLEE: That is an entire travesty on what I said. I said that the representatives on the joint electricity authorities were quite equal in ability to the hon. Member for Hampstead.

Mr. BALFOUR: The serious point is that after we pass this Bill the working of it has to be handed over to other people, and they will consider it in the light of what they find printed in the Bill when it becomes an Act. I know that when the Bill becomes an Act there will be a rush to set up joint electricity authorities in districts like that to which I referred yesterday when dealing with another matter. I find that I mentioned a period of two years, but, after four years of enormous expense and disturbance to the industry in that area, the matter was only settled a year ago by the creation of a joint advisory board, with the full assent and co-operation of all the people to whom the hon. Member for Limehouse refers, that is to say, all the local authorities, all the companies, and all the large consumers. Having examined this very problem, they did not form a joint electricity authority. But there is a certain minority anxious to get a joint electricity authority established in this district in order to give effect to their views and ideas, which, however, were proved to be fallacious when submitted to the test of the series of inquiries that were held. A joint electricity authority like that is to be
the authority which is to have the first opportunity of operating these stations in the event of the Board having to take over the responsibility for them. I would press the Attorney-General to give grave consideration to this matter, and to consider whether the request that these words should be inserted is not a reasonable one. I should be quite content at the moment, in order not to delay the proceedings, if he could give me his assurance that he will give this matter consideration, and, if my contentions are agreed to, see if they can be given effect to in another place.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is important that we should know exactly what this proposal is. The House has already, at an earlier stage of the Bill, approved of the view that joint electricity authorities shall have the first opportunity of acquiring stations which the owners will not operate. We are now discussing similar provisions with regard to the operation of the stations which have been acquired by the Board, and the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) is that a distinction shall be made between the three joint electricity authorities which have already been constituted, and any others which may be constituted hereafter. I confess I can see no reason why any such distinction should be drawn. My hon. Friend apprehends, apparently, that such would be the attraction of the possibility of being given the first option to operate stations which will probably never be acquirable at all, or, if they can be acquired, will never get as far as the Board—my hon. Friend fears that such would be the attraction of that remote possibility that everyone would rush to form a joint electricity authority.
My hon. Friend speaks as if people had only to apply in order to become joint electricity authorities, but no one knows better than he that that is a complete misconception. It is a very difficult thing to become a joint electricity authority—my hon. Friend himself has seen to that—and only three have passed through the eye of the needle so far. As the House will remember, a joint electricity authority can only be set up after there has been an inquiry, after an Order has been made by the Electricity Commis-
sioners, after that Order has been confirmed by the Ministry of Transport, and after the Order so confirmed has been laid before each House of Parliament and approved by each House. Therefore, a very elaborate and careful process has to be gone through. Further than that, by the Section which provides for the constitution of such authorities, they have to be representative of the authorised undertakers within the electricity district.
The body, therefore, to which we are proposing to give the first option of operating these stations, is a body which must, by the terms of the Bill, be representative of the whole of the authorised undertakers within the district, and it can only be set up after the Electricity Commissioners have been satisfied that it is desirable, after that view has been confirmed by the Ministry of Transport, and after that view of the Ministry has in turn been confirmed by both Houses of Parliament. I venture to think it is not an extreme thing to say that a body so constituted, so carefully examined and ultimately approved, is a fit body to be given the first option of operating these stations. That is all that we are giving to it. Even without these words the Board would still be entitled to allow the joint electricity authority to operate the station. All that we are providing is that it shall be given the first chance. I can see no logical reason why any distinction should be drawn between the three joint electricity authorities which have already been constituted and those which may hereafter be constituted under the elaborate provisions to which I have referred. I hope, therefore, that the House will not accept the Amendment.

Mr. D. HERBERT: May I ask the Attorney-General a question? He seems to attach considerable importance to the representative character of the joint electricity authority. Supposing that the joint electricity authority, as in the case of the existing ones, has a very large power company within its area, to which it has delegated, in respect of the district of the power company, its main powers, can the joint electricity authority in these circumstances, if it considers that the power company is a proper body to operate this station, require that the offer shall be passed on to the power company?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think the answer is that they cannot require that the offer should be passed on to anyone, but certainly they can suggest that it should be, and, in view of the fact that they are representative of the district, probably that suggestion would receive most favourable consideration.

Sir J. NALL: May I further ask whether, in the North Wales case, the operation of this proviso, if accepted, would not mean that the North Wales Power Company, being the joint electricity authority, would have the first option, and the Chester Corporation would be shut out?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No; it means that in any district, including North Wales, the joint electricity authority would be given the first option of operating the station. If they declined to exercise that themselves, no doubt they could make a suggestion to the Board, and no doubt the Board would favourably consider it. Whether they suggested the Chester Corporation or the North Wales Power Company, no doubt the suggestion would receive careful consideration.

Sir J. NALL: May I ask a further question?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member has exhausted his right.
Amendment to proposed Amendment negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next Amendment to the proposed Amendment has really been disposed of by the rejection of the first two sub-Amendments on the Paper.
Proposed words there inserted in the Bill.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The next two Amendments have been disposed of consequentially upon what has already been rejected.

CLAUSE 6.—(New selected stations.)

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: With regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson), in page 7, line 28, at the end, to insert the words
but where such area of supply is situate in an electricity district for which a joint
electricity authority has been constituted, the Board shall first endeavour to enter into arrangements with the authority for the provision of such station.
—I think that that also has been disposed of earlier in the day.

Mr. HUDSON: May I suggest, with respect, that there are three different questions here? There is the question of acquisition, the question of operation, and the question of provision, and this Amendment deals with the third question, namely, the question of provision.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: Is it not the same principle that was embodied in the hon. Member's previous Amendment?

Mr. HUDSON: It is the same principle, but it comes in another place.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: May I just say that this is exactly the same principle which the House accepted in an earlier Amendment, so that, at any rate, the House ought to have the opportunity of being logical and accepting it again?

Mr. HUDSON: I beg to move, in page 7, line 28, at the end, to insert the words
but where such area of supply is situate in an electricity district for which a joint electricity authority has been constituted, the Board shall first endeavour to enter into arrangements with the authority for the provision of such station.
In view of the fact that the House has accepted the principle on the two points of acquisition and operation, I hope I need not go into the matter at any further length in requesting it to approve of the same principle when there is a question of providing a new station.

Mr. STORRY-DEANS: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. BALFOUR: I think I can satisfy the Attorney-General that this is an Amendment which he ought not to accept. This does deal, as the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson) has said, with a different question, but it also raises a totally different issue, in so far as this, think, is the first time a joint electricity authority is to have the right definitely to construct something fresh, namely, a new station. If this Amendment be carried, it will involve the provision of funds by the joint electricity authority for the construction of the station, and, therefore, as they have no assets and no properties operating, it will presumably
involve a State guarantee of interest, or some form of public guarantee, in regard to any issue that they might make. If the Board is to transfer to them the right to construct a new generating station, it stands to reason that they must have money, and they have nothing in that particular district. I am not referring to any existing district, but, where they have delegated to them special power to construct a new station, they must obviously make an issue of some sort of stock, and that stock must be guaranteed. Therefore, for the first time, the question is involved of financing the joint electricity authority under a State guarantee, and I think the Attorney-General will, on reflection, see that this is not an Amendment which should properly be conceded as in any way linked up with the Amendment which was made to Clause 5 in connection with the transfer to the joint electricity authority of an existing selected station which the Board has taken over, and which would not necessarily involve the provision of funds for its erection. I sincerely hope that my right hon. Friend will not accept this Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. WALLHEAD: I beg to move, in page 7, line 38, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the word "shall."
6.0 p.m.
Sub-section (3) would then read:
Where the Board themselves provide a new generating station, they shall operate it themselves, or make arrangements with any authorised undertakers or other company or person to operate it.
I agree that this question has been already discussed at length, but we shall continue to put forward our views, when ever we get the chance, with the same iteration with which our friends on the opposite side put forward their particular point of view. We have been asked many times why we continue to urge that there should be public operating and control in place of private control. We can say at any rate that this is not put forward in order to benefit ourselves, and that is a point which cannot be urged by hon. Members opposite, who are indulging in so much obstruction. They openly boast that they are advocating the interests of certain companies in which they are interested. We had that on the Committee as well. We on the other hand are doing our level
best to forward an idea which we believe will be of benefit to the community as a whole.
I want to quote a statement by Sir Benjamin Longbottom, who was president of the Engineers Club in Manchester, on 22nd October. He was dealing with the very efficient municipal service of Manchester. It was municipal in its inception, and has been built up by the municipality under the control of the Manchester Corporation. I give hon. Members opposite the credit that at all times during the progress of this station it has been a Conservative Town Council, and it is they who, while in charge of the Council, have built up this magnificent station. Of course, they are wise. They know a good thing when they see it. They do not rely on private enterprise when they want cheap power. They sell it to other people, but they do not do it themselves. Sir Benjamin was dealing with the question of the price level and the annual consumption. He was pointing out that the annual consumption is round about seven million units per annum, and that Manchester was producing 300,000,000, or 1–23rd of the whole, and he went on to say:
If all stations were as efficient as Manchester the average charge would be reduced by 35 per cent., which would represent a saving of about £17,500,000 on the annual consumption.
He went on to say that it was hoped the annual consumption would be trebled in 15 years' time. If the consumption is trebled and if it could be done on the Manchester basis, that could be made the basis of the supply for the whole of the country and the saving in 15 years would be over £52,500,000. Here we have proof by a public authority that it can and does supply this vital necessity cheaply, efficiently and well, and it is because of facts like that that we continually urge that public authorities should, whenever possible, take control of this power and retail it, not for the purpose of making individual profit, but simply paying administrative charges and delivering the goods at the lowest possible price to a sorely stricken set of traders who need all the help they can get to meet the competition they are called upon to meet. We think conditions are apt to get worse instead of better, and because of that, and because of the prospect of
continued unemployment amongst the working classes, if it is possible so to improve the power conditions under which industry is carried on it will be better for everyone concerned. The Amendment lays it as an obligation on the Electricity Board to operate stations themselves if they build such stations.

Mr. VIANT: I beg to second the Amendment.
It will be obvious that the Commissioners will not embark upon the erection of a generating station unless there is need for it. That will of necessity entail public expenditure, and we feel at least that if the Commissioners have to embark upon public expenditure of this kind the operation of that generating station should remain in the hands of the Commissioners themselves and it should not be permitted to be operated by private enterprise.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The House will not be surprised if I have to say I cannot accept this Amendment consistently with the opinion we have already expressed. It is obvious that the arguments the hon. Member has put forward are substantially on the same lines and based on the same premises as those we resisted at an earlier stage. The Amendment will make it compulsory on any Board which constructs a new station to operate it itself. Incidentally, of course, it will render it impossible for the Board which constructs the station to make an arrangement with some highly efficient corporation, such as Manchester, to operate it. That could only be done if we kept the Bill as it is. The grounds on which I resist the Amendment are the same as those on which I resisted an earlier Amendment in the same direction, and for the same reason I must ask the House to reject this one.

Sir J. NALL: I am glad the Attorney-General has drawn attention to the contradiction in the speech of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil (Mr. Wallhead), who pays a compliment to the Manchester Electrical Undertaking and, in the same breath, says on no account is the Board ever to avail itself of such an opportunity of efficient management.
Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 7. — (Obligations and rights of owners of selected stations.)

Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 8, line 8, after the word "electricity," to insert the words
as may be required by the Board for the purposes of the scheme (in addition to the electricity required by the owners for the purposes of their undertaking or business).
The effect of this and the following Amendment, which is consequential, would be that the owners of a selected station would be entitled to retain so much of the electricity as they required for the purposes of their own undertaking or business, and it is subject to the retention of what they require for their own business that they would operate their station under the orders of the Board and supply electricity to the Board. To put it in another way, it is intended to simplify the machinery of one of the great points of the Bill, which is that the selected stations are to generate electricity, sell it to the Board and buy it back again for the purposes of distribution. One realises, of course, that that is in order to create a kind of pool of electricity by which a deficiency in one part may be made up by the surplus in another, but if you allow the selected stations to retain what they require for their own purposes you simplify the proceedings very much indeed while maintaining the power of the Board over the stations which is intended by the scheme of the Bill. I do not think this matter was gone into in the same way in Committee. This would do away with the kind of dual control and the friction which would be likely to result from the selected station having to sell what it required for its own purposes and to buy it back, and would surely simplify the working of the Bill without making any radical alteration in the scheme.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
This is a point that has been urged on the Government by the Association of Chambers of Commerce, who ask that an efficient undertaking should be allowed to continue to supply direct to consumers in their own area. I think it could be shown that it will be very much more convenient for the operation of the Board and will in fact facilitate the carrying
out of their schemes if, instead of being involved in working out a redistribution for those from whom they acquire it, they are devoting their energy to supplying current to those in need of it. It will be very much simpler and it will considerably lighten their duties if the existing undertakers are left in the position of being able to supply their own needs as and when they wish from their own stations. Obvously, in their own interest they will do that in the most efficient way. There need be no difficulty in requiring the owners of those stations to supply the Board, as and when the Board requires, with such quantity as they find necessary for their purposes elsewhere. It is fairly obvious that if the system at present in the Bill is adhered to the Board, in allocating the distribution from the particular selected stations, will first of all have to have regard to the needs of the consumer distributed from the undertaker who owns and works that station. Therefore, they will only have to do what at present the owners do for themselves, that is, to meet their own needs in the most efficient and most convenient way. This Amendment will go a long way to smooth out the working of the scheme. It need not be regarded in any way as hampering the operation of the scheme. On the contrary, it will tend towards efficiency and economy and it will minimise the disturbance to existing undertakings.
On that point, may I mention such a system as the north-east coast, where some 20 stations feed into a common system. Under the provisions of the Bill, the Board may select one of those stations and disturb the balance of the working of the other 19. It is important that in any area where several stations are already feeding into a common system the selection of one or more of those several stations should not cause a dislocation of the working in that area. This Amendment, which would leave the owner of the selected station in the position of being able to continue his scheme for the efficient supply of his own area, by working the seleected station so as to give himself the supply necessary for the working of the scheme, would materially assist the smooth operation of the scheme as a whole.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is a fundamental Amendment which goes to
the root of the Bill. Although my hon. Friend the Member for the Hulme Division (Sir J. Nall), who seconded the Amendment, said that it would go a long way to smooth out the working of the scheme, I think he might more correctly have said that it would go a long way to roll the scheme out of existence altogether. The plan which the Bill embodies is one under which the current generated by the owners of the selected stations is acquired by the Board and is then supplied by them to the authorised undertakers, including the owners of the selected stations who may desire it. The plan which the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment propose is that the owners of the selected stations shall merely sell to the Board their surplus current. The House will remember that this proposal was discussed in the Weir Report. In paragraphs 40 to 45 of that Report, hon. Members will find that the suggestion contained in the present Amendment is discussed and shown to be impracticable and unworkable, and definitely rejected, and the proposal which forms part of the Bill is substituted for it.
In addition to the arguments set out in these particular paragraphs, which I have no doubt are familiar to the House, there is another point which seems to me conclusive against the proposal in the Amendment. If the Amendment were carried, the result would be that only the surplus current which the selected owners did not require would go into the Board's pool. It would follow, therefore, that the expenses of the Board which, of course, are spread in the Bill over the whole of the units producing the current, would be all paid by the people who did not own the selected stations, and the owners of the selected stations would be in the happy position of bearing no part of them, while at the same time these owners would get the whole benefit of the scheme, because they would get all the advantages of the interconnection, of the improved load factor and the other benefits which the scheme involves.

Mr. HERBERT: That was not the intention of the Amendment. If this Amendment were carried it might require certain consequential alterations in order to avoid the particular point which the Attorney-General has been arguing against the Amendment, so that what they would pay should be calculated, not
only on their surplus, but on what they retained for their own undertakings as well.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I quite accept my hon. Friend's assurance that he had in mind some other Amendments which I do not think he has put down, which would prevent that advantage accruing to the owners of these selected stations. At any rate, on the Amendment as it is framed and before the House, I do not think it can be doubted that that is the effect of it. That is the only effect of it beyond making the scheme unworkable. Under the scheme in the Bill the Board, which co-ordinates the supply of electricity, is able to tell how much it wants from each selected station and is able to ensure that it shall get a supply which is adequate for the total consumption with which it has to deal. If instead of that you allow the owners of selected stations merely to hand over to the Board their surplus current, a position of great insecurity and instability, to use the words of the Weir Report, would be created, because the Board would always be uncertain as to what supply they would get. The only fair and reasonable way of dealing with the matter is that provided by the Bill, namely, that the Board shall acquire all the current which it requires from the selected stations and shall then let it be sold back to the selected stations, in common with the other authorised undertakers, at cost price, with the additional advantage to the owners of the selected stations that they have two further options, one of them being that in no event can they pay more for the current than it would have cost them to produce it had the Board not come along. The scheme outlined in the Bill is the proper one, and the authors of the Weir Report were right when they condemned the proposals in the Amendment as unworkable and impracticable.

Mr. BALFOUR: My right hon. and learned Friend said, referring to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for the Hulme Division (Sir J. Nall), who seconded the Amendment, that the Amendment would go a long way to roll out the scheme. Having said that, I have not heard a single word from him to satisfy us on that point. Again, as on so many occasions, we have had words but no facts. My right hon. and learned
Friend referred to the Weir Report, paragraph 45. Paragraph 45 says:
Briefly, therefore, we recommend that all High Tension energy generated by authorised undertakers in this country after a certain date should be generated under control in accordance with a technical scheme for the country, and sold through the Board to all authorised undertakers at cost price.
That, I think, summarises the recommendation of the Weir Report on this point, and it is in no way in conflict with the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend. There is nothing in conflict between the Weir Report and the Amendment. My right hon. and learned Friend said that the Board in the distribution of the current from all these stations will have to say how much they want from each selected station. Can they take from a selected station more than that selected station can sell, over and above what that selected station requires for the immediate use and purposes of the current which must be distributed from that selected station? I think not. If my right hon. and learned Friend can give me a typical instance where a generating station is working and supplying its area and putting out its current for the purpose for which that station was erected, and able to deliver a surplus to some other authority, and it can deliver more than it is using for its own purposes, we might see some reason for dealing with this matter in another way. It must be clear to anyone familiar with this business that when a station is selected, it is already operating and turning out a large amount of current. It must continue to operate and it must continue to turn out that amount of current for its own purposes. Surely, the Board can take from that station no more than the capacity of the plant to produce a surplus in excess of its requirements.
We are urging this point as one of practical working and not for the wrecking of the Bill. So far as engineering, accountancy and finance are concerned, surely the simplest operation is that if you have a selected station turning out, say, 100,000,000 units per annum and 80,000,000 units of the output of that station are used by the owner of the selected station, who is an undertaker for the purposes of his undertaking, it is
better to deduct the 80,000,000 at the first, and then for the Board to keep an account of the surplus 20,000,000 which is used by the Board under, of course, proper Regulations, so that the price which the Board pays for the surplus shall be based on the cost of the output from the station, corrected only as to load factor, so that the Board suffers no disability whatever in regard to price, and gets a proper distribution for the surplus current taken over. There may be some different meaning in retaining the present method in the Bill. It may be to camouflage in the eyes of the public the total expenditure incurred in operating this scheme, by distributing the expense over not only the amount of current dealt with by the Board, but also over an amount of current with which the Board has nothing to do, which goes directly from the station for the purpose of the undertaking. That would mean dividing the expenses of the Board and of the Commissioners by the larger amount of units, thereby making the unit figure of expense much lower than would otherwise have been the case. If my right hon. and learned Friend can produce any other arguments to show that the Amendment is technically, commercially or financially unworkable, I am open to conviction, but up to the present I am satisfied that he is unable to do more than say that this is the scheme which the Executive have determined upon, which they determined upon before the Weir Report saw the light of day, which the Weir Report does not definitely lay down, and which is carrying out the policy of the Executive at the moment controlling His Majesty's Government.

Amendment negatived.

The following Amendments stood on the Order Pepper in the name of Sir J. NALL:
In page 8:
In line 15, to leave out Sub-section (2).
In line 28, to leave out the words 'the cost of production,' and to insert the words 'such proportion of the cost of production of all the electricity generated at the station.'
In line 30, at the end to insert the words 'as the quantity of electricity generated at the station and sold to the Board bears to the total quantity of electricity generated at the station.'

Mr. SPEAKER: The three Amendments standing in the name of the hon. Member for Hulme are consequential.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 8, line 31, to leave out Sub-section (4).
This Amendment is intended to link up with another Amendment to Clause 7 on page 9, line 7. It is little more than a drafting Amendment. In Sub-section (4) it is provided that the Board is to make monthly payments on account for electricity sold to it, at rates to be ascertained. There is no corresponding provision in the Bill whereby the Board shall be paid for the electricity which it supplies back. Obviously, what is intended is that the Board shall make payments for the net amount due, otherwise it would be for 12 months paying for the electricity which it had bought, and there would be no contra payment for the amount bought back by the owners of the selected stations. The later Amendment provides that monthly payments shall be made of the net amount due, instead of a payment in gross without giving credit for the amount supplied back.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 9, line 4, after the word "electricity," to insert the words "or incurred under or in respect of money borrowed under Section nine of this Act."
I should explain that money borrowed under Section 9 refers to money which has to be paid in respect of the expenses of the standardisation of frequency. The effect of the Clause is that the price to be paid for electricity is to be arrived at by taking the cost of producton with a proper proportion of the Board's expenses, other than the expenses incurred by the Board in the purchase or generation of electricity. I propose to add to that exception, expenses incurred by the Board on standardisation. I feel a little difficulty in moving this Amendment because the matter depends to some extent on what the Government propose to do in regard to Clause 9, which has not yet been reached. I am not quite clear as to how they propose that the expenses of standardisation should be
borne, and in the circumstances it would perhaps be better for me formally to move the Amendment in order that the Attorney-General may be able to explain what the Government intend to do in regard to Clause 9.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think the Attorney-General will find on reflection that it is necessary.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As the mover of the Amendment has quite rightly said, this raises a question with regard to the expenses of standardisation, which is dealt with in a later Clause, and as to which I have an Amendment on the Order Paper to the following effect:
() The Board shall be entitled to be repaid by the Electricity Commissioners in each year the sums required to meet the interest and sinking fund charges in respect of money so borrowed, and the payment of such sums shall be treated as part of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners, but shall be shown as a separate item in their accounts and in their demand notes for contributions towards their expenses.
Provided that the apportionment of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners under this Sub-section, instead of being made in accordance with Section seven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, shall be made on the basis of the revenue received from the sale of electricity other than electricity sold in bulk to authorised undertakers.
This is put down in order to meet a very general view expressed in the Committee when discussing the problem of that expenditure. The intention of the Government is to carry out the wish expressed on all sides in the Committee, that the expenses of standardisation shall be a charge borne by consumers of the country generally and not by one area alone. That is provided for by the Amendment to Clause 9. After that explanation I am bound to resist the present Amendment. If by chance the Government's proposals on Clause 9 were not carried, and the Board were left to pay for the expenses of standardisation, then the effect of the present Amendment would be that whereas all the other authorised undertakers who acquired current would have to pay their quota to the Board's expenses, the owners of selected stations would be excluded from any share in the expenses of standardisation, and the whole of those expenses would fall on the other authorised under-
takers. I do not think the Mover of the Amendment intends that, but that would be the effect if this Amendment was carried, and my own, unfortunately, was not accepted. If my Amendment is carried then there is no need for the present proposal, because in that event the cost of standardisation will not form part of the Board's expenses as it will be repaid to the Board by the Electricity Commissioners. I hope the Amendment therefore will be withdrawn.

Mr. HERBERT: I appreciate fully what the Attorney-General has said, but I think the more convenient course would be for him to accept this Amendment now. If he carries his Amendment he will then be able to make the alterations in the Bill that are necessary, and I would suggest therefore that it would be more convenient for him to accept this Amendment and rely on carrying his own Amendment to Clause 9.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If, as I hope, my Amendment on Clause 9 is accepted, then the present Amendment is not needed, because it will not be necessary to exclude the costs of standardisation from the Board's expenses since they will not form part of the Board's expenses. They are paid to the Board by the Electricity Commissioners.

Mr. HERBERT: I did not realise that point, and I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 9, line 7, at the end, to insert the words
() The Board shall make to the owners of each selected station monthly payments on account of the net amounts due from the Board to those owners under this Section in accordance with estimates made for the purpose, subject to adjustment as soon after the end of the year of account as the actual liability can be ascertained.
This is to carry out what was the intention of Sub-section (4)—namely, to make monthly payments to the owners of selected stations in respect of the current which is taken from them month by month.
Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 9, line 9, after the word "section," to insert the words
then, if it relates to the cost of production, it shall be determined by an auditor appointed by the Minister of Transport, and in any other case.
This Amendment is introduced for the determination of financial questions by an auditor instead of as provided by the Bill. It is moved in order to carry out promises which I made during the Committee stage of the Bill. It was suggested in Committee that matters in dispute should be referred to an appeal tribunal, but it was pointed out that this would not do because some of the matters were of a purely technical nature, and I undertook to do something on the lines of the Amendment in order to meet points of dispute on questions which were financial. The Amendment was put down for the Committee stage by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) but it was not moved, and, therefore, in order to carry out the promise I made I have put it down for Report stage.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 9, line 12, after the first word "the," to insert the words "auditor or."
This is consequential on the Amendment which I have just moved.

Mr. BALFOUR: I only desire to make one technical observation, and it is to draw attention to the fact that this Amendment introduces these different approving authorities.
Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 9, line 19, to leave out the word "Commissioners," and to insert instead thereof the word "auditor."

This, again, is consequential.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 9, line 19, at the end, to insert the following new Sub-section:
(7) For the purposes of the agreements contained in the Third Schedule to the London Electricity (No. 1) Act, 1925, and the London Electricity (No. 2) Act. 1925, the Board, in relation to the electricity purchased by the Board from the owners of selected stations in pursuance of this Section shall not be deemed to be a consumer within the meaning of paragraph 3 of the schedule to those agreements.
This Amendment is moved in order to preserve the position created in London
by the passing of the two Electricity Acts last year. In the third Schedule to those Acts there is set forth in a long catalogue the heads under which charges are to be included in the agreements between the London County Council and the various companies, and it is provided that the dividends of each of the companies shall be regulated by the price of electricity sold by the companies in accordance with the sliding scale of prices and dividends set out in the Schedule. It also says that the total revenue arrived at shall be sub-divided and standard prices fixed for supplies to railway and traction supplies, bulk supplies, street lighting, and private consumers. The schedule also provides that the standard price shall be such that when applied to the energy sold there is a sufficient revenue to meet the costs and charges of generating and distributing electricity and certain other charges.
All this is set forth in the Schedule. It may happen that unless the present position is preserved by some such Amendment as the one I am moving, that selected stations would be treated as if they were receiving new supplies, and consequently the standard price would be less than the standard price fixed under the two Acts of 1925, and about 40 stations would not be in a position to discharge the various obligations imposed upon them by those Acts. It is in order that the situation might be made perfectly clear and that the obligations imposed on the London County Council by these two Acts should not be disturbed by the provisions of the present Bill that I am moving the Amendment. I hope nothing will be done to interfere with the existing situation in London, and with the efforts which have been made to supply London with cheap and abundant electricity. All we ask is that the conditions imposed upon the London County Council by the provisions of the Acts of 1925 shall not be so altered as to make it impossible for companies to discharge their obligations. I hope the Attorney-General, who has treated all relevant and constructive proposals very kindly, will see his way to accept the Amendment.

Sir PHILIP DAWSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The only question is whether this Amendment is strictly necessary, or whether the point is not quite fairly clear already in the Bill. It is not intended that supplies made by the Board to different authorised undertakers in London should be calculated as part of the bulk supplies within the meaning of the agreement reached. But it is obviously not clear, and as there may be a doubt whether that might not be the construction put on the words, I think it is quite permissible that it should be made quite clear, and for that reason I will accept the Amendment.

Mr. ATTLEE: I should like to be sure exactly what this Amendment does. If the hon. Member who moved it had cut out some of the "soft stuff" and given us more information, we should have been much more enlightened as to the real meaning of his proposal. I would like to be assured that by accepting this Amendment we are doing only what is absolutely necessary.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I looked at the Amendment carefully before accepting it, and I think it is clear that we do not go to far. For the purpose of these agreements the Board shall not be deemed to be a consumer. That means obviously that the supplies given to the Board shall not come in, in calculating the price. I do not see how it can be misinterpreted or spread the net too wide. It only excludes supplies to the Board from being calculated as supplies to the consumer.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Construction and acquisition of main transmission lines.)

Amendments made: In page 9, line 21, after the word "area," insert the words "or part of an area."

In line 26, at the end, insert the words "or part of an area."—[Mr. D. Herbert.]

In page 9, leave out lines 35 to 38.— [The Attorney-General.]

CLAUSE 9.—(Standardisation of frequency.)

Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, after the word "expenses," to insert the words "losses or damages."
This Amendment and the four next following are all for the same purpose and form one proposed alteration. The object is that the loss or damage which is incurred as a result of the action of the Board should be paid for as well as the actual expenses. I hope that in this case it may be accepted by the Government that the word "expenses" might not be sufficient to meet the point, and that alterations for the purpose of standardisation of frequency might in many cases result in considerable loss or damage to the undertakers, in excess of the actual expense of making the alterations. This point was raised in Committee, but I hope that now that the learned Attorney-General has been able to give further consideration to it he will agree to the inclusion of these words.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: As has been said, this Amendment was discussed in Committee, and at very great length, and was finally defeated by 38 votes to 6. In fact the Amendment, if carried, would waterlog the scheme from the start. Under the Bill at present any expenses incurred by any authorised undertakers in standardising frequency are to be repaid to them. I will presently move an Amendment to deal with the ultimate bearing of that expense. The proposal here is to provide that any loss or damage which they might sustain should also be paid to them. As was explained in Committee, if the change-over under the standardisation scheme is carefully and competently done, it can take an almost negligible time. There is at least one instance, which the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) gave in Committee, in which he was able to do it between a Saturday and a Monday. The time involved, therefore, is very slight, and the inconvenience very small. No doubt, however, if it is not competently done it can take a great deal longer. Suppose that a provision were incorporated in this Clause under which every owner of a selected station and every authorised undertaker was entitled to formulate a scheme for all the loss or damage which he could sustain by reason of a standardisation scheme, I myself have no doubt that we should have brought before the
tribunal a vast body of expert evidence, which would explain to the horrified tribunal that such a scheme as this probably would not be efficiently carried out and would take a great deal longer than two or three days, that it might last. for weeks or months, that the loss of custom would be enormous, that the damage which the unhappy authorised undertaker was likely to incur was almost incalculable; and we should have all that array of expert evidence, which, unfortunately, we are fairly familiar with in the Courts, in cases where prospective, or what are sometimes called speculative, damages are asked for at the hands of a sympathetic tribunal.
If we were to have all the undertakers and owners in the areas in which standardisation took place at liberty to formulate claims for losses and damages, as to which they would produce evidence, I have no doubt that we should have an enormous number of very large claims which, although the tribunal might discount them a great deal, would take a great deal of time and expense to test, and might result in very substantial awards in the aggregate, although in individual cases they might be disappointing to the claimants. That is a prospect which I cannot ask the House to sanction or support. At present the position is that we have a scheme under which, whenever standardisation takes place, there will be, as we believe, a substantial saving in the cost of current, which will be reflected in increased consumption and profits to the authorised undertakers. We are willing to provide that the whole cost of the actual expense of any change-over shall be paid to the particular undertakers affected, because it is not fair that where the expense of a change-over is caused in the general interest the individual who has to make the change should bear that special expense. But we are now asked to go further and to provide that they may formulate claims for losses and damages, which might be immense. We are asked to make far too great a concession to the authorised undertakers, and we are risking the whole solvency of the scheme without meeting any real damage. I ask the House to reject the Amendment and to affirm the decision of the Committee.

Mr. HERBERT: After what the Attorney-General has said, I beg to
ask leave to withdraw the Amendment, although I would suggest that he has drawn a rather more lurid picture than he need have done as to what might happen. If he reads the Clause carefully he will see that, with the Amendment, it includes only expenses or losses or damages "properly incurred."

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 10, line 20, to leave out the word "may," and to insert instead thereof the words "shall if required."
This Amendment is sought because it is possible to conceive a Board which would not be inclined to treat a municipal authority or private undertaker as well or generously or considerately as if it were obligatory on them to do so. Take the case of Birmingham, which is particularly interested in this Clause. The people of Birmingham are, quite naturally, looking to a possible change of standardisation with very grave anxiety. My right hon. Friend indicates that he is prepared to accept the Amendment, and I will not take up further time by explaining it.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: We were assured in Committee by the Attorney-General that neither the Government nor the people would have to pay for this, but that everything would come out of the industry. I would like to draw the right hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the case of Ealing, where I live. A notice was recently issued there saying that in future the voltage was to be 230, and the notice added that all lamps and plant on consumers' premises would be changed free of cost. There was much correspondence in the local paper from consumers who wished to know where they stood, and Mr. J. D. Knight, the borough electrical engineer, wrote to the Press assuring the correspondents that they were needlessly alarming themselves. He said that when the change over was made everything would be put to the cost of the department, and to that extent it would cost the people nothing.
The point that I wish to clear up, and it is a point that has never been made clear to me, arises from the fact that in
every change that is made there must be a certain expenditure. As I understand it, according to the Bill that expenditure is to be given as a guarantee by the Government, and it is to be drawn from the earnings of the production of electricity under the Board. When you do that, you must either have a decrease in the cost of producing the current equal to the money you are expending or you must increase the price to the consumer in order to get the money that is going to be paid for all these replacements. I can see no way out of that position as the Bill is drafted. The expenditure is going to be huge. Ealing is a small place, but when you consider the number of people using electricity even there and the number of new lamps, materials and fitments that they will require, you can see how large the expenditure will be. Yet the people of Ealing are all being told not to worry about these new things, that when the time comes they will be changed over at the expense of the council, which becomes the authority under this Bill. The council cannot put that expenditure on the rates. They must go to some other organisation and the next organisation is the Board, which controls the electricity. Can we get a direct statement from the Government that in every instance there is going to be a guarantee by the Government covering all such replacements? There is nothing in the Bill indicating how that money is to be repaid unless the vague statement which has been made once or twice that it is hoped under this Bill to make such an increase in profits as to pay for all these things.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I would be glad to answer the point which the hon. Member has just raised, but it would be taking a risk if we were to discuss it on this Amendment, because it does not arise here but on a later Amendment. The Amendment we are on at the present moment merely says that the Board shall advance the sums if required.

Mr. HARDIE: Is it the Board or the local authority that becomes responsible?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The provision we are dealing with is that the Board may require standardisation, and that if they do they must repay the expenses, and the Bill says that the Board may advance such sums as are necessary.
The Board can only require standardisation subject to the payment to the authorised undertakers or owners of any expenditure they incur. Now it has been thought that there may be authorised undertakers, who are not in the position to find the money in the first instance and then be repaid by the Board, and that they might find it much more convenient if they got the money lent them by the Board in the first instance, instead of finding the money themselves and then being repaid by the Board. To meet them it is now provided that the Board shall advance such sums as may be necessary if they are asked to do so. It does not seem to me unreasonable that they should do that. I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie) when I come to discuss the matter of the ultimate incidence of the standardisation.

Mr. BALFOUR: I should like to ask the Attorney-General what Clause we propose to reach to-night.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is rather early to decide that.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HANNON: I beg to move, in page 10, line 27, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that if any authorised owners or undertakers consider that they will be prejudiced by the requirements of the Board they may within one month of the date of such approval by notice in writing specifying the nature of the complaint and the relief sought by them require the Board to refer the matter complained of to the decision of the arbitrator to be appointed under Section four, Sub-section (3) and (4) of this Act, who shall have power to confirm, modify, or rescind such requirement as the circumstances of the case may justify.
It is easily conceivable that, in cases where the requirements of the Board are presented to authorised undertakers or owners, questions may arise on which the decision of the Board would be unsatisfactory, and it is only reasonable to ask that, within a definite limit of time, the owner or undertaker should have the right to appeal to the arbitrator. The acceptance of the Amendment would give a great deal of satisfaction throughout the country to owners and undertakers who will be affected by the operations of the Bill hereafter, and would give them confidence that the Government wish to
give them every possible opportunity of obtaining the fullest measure of justice under the Bill. The Amendment is in no way embarrassing, because I know that the Attorney-General objects to loading the Bill with provisions. This Amendment would improve this Bill by conceding to undertakers and owners an opportunity of having their case reviewed as against the Board, if they have a genuine case, and I therefore hope that the Attorney-General will agree to accept it.

Mr. BURMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: My hon. Friend always puts his case so persuasively and kindly that it is very difficult to resist his blandishments. This time, however, I must harden my heart, and, in order to soften the blow, I would like to remind him what the existing position is and how it is being dealt with. Under the present Bill, any standardisation included in a scheme is already subject to appeal under Clause 4. Any other standardisation could, without this Bill, be ordered by the Electricity Commissioners under Section 24 of the 1919 Act, subject only to an appeal to the Minister of Transport, and the only ground on which the Minister of Transport could disallow an order would be that it entailed unreasonable expense on the undertakers, because an order made under the 1919 Act at present would be an order which the undertakers would have to comply with at their own expense. Now we are providing that standardisation may be required by the Board with the approval of the Electricity Commissioners, but it is a condition that it shall entail no expense on the undertakers, because the expense is to be borne as provided in Clause 9. We are putting the undertakers by this Clause in a substantially better position than they otherwise would be, especially as my hon. Friend sees that I have put down an Amendment saying that the powers of Section 24 of the 1919 Act cannot be exercised any longer in an area within Section 9.

Mr. HANNON: Do I understand that the appeal will only refer to expenses alone and that no other complaints would come under it?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: No other complaints that I know of. I was contrasting the position at present with the position under the Bill. The present position is that the Electricity Commissioners may make an order for the undertakers to change the frequency at their own expense, and the only objection that the undertakers can take is that it will cause them unreasonable expense. Now we are providing that, in areas included in the scheme, such standardisation as is required can only be required on the terms that the whole of the expenses are to be paid. So the undertaker is substantially better off than under the existing law, and I venture to think that we are not treating him unfairly.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 10, line 28, to leave out the words "shall be a purpose" and to insert instead thereof the words "and the making of such advances shall be purposes."
This is a drafting Amendment and is necessary in order to make the Bill good grammar, having regard to an alteration made in Sub-section (1) in Committee, including advances to undertakers among the powers of the Board.
Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 10, line 37, at the end, to insert the following new Sub-section:
The Board shall be entitled to be repaid by the Electricity Commissioners in each year the sums required to meet the interest and sinking fund charges in respect of money so borrowed, and the payment of such sums shall be treated as part of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners, but shall be shown as a separate item in their accounts and in their demand notes for contributions towards their expenses.
Provided that the apportionment of the expenses of the Electricity Commissioners under this Sub-section, instead of being made in accordance with Section seven of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1922, shall be made on the basis of the revenue received from the sale of electricity other than electricity sold in bulk to authorised undertakers.
This is the Amendment to which I referred earlier as affording a convenient opportunity for discussing a matter which was raised by the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie). It is a point which gave rise to considerable discussion
in Committee and the Amendment is in fulfilment of a promise which I made to the Committee after hearing the views expressed there by Members on all sides. The proposal concerns the ultimate incidence of the cost of standardisation. Under Clause 9 the Board may in certain circumstances require alteration of frequency for the purpose of standardisation in various areas, and it is provided that the actual expense shall be repaid to the authorised undertaker by the Board. How much it will cost will depend on the extent to which standardisation may prove necessary. It is a matter which has been carefully considered on behalf of the Government and the estimate which we made—on the assumption that the Bill would go through as we originally contemplated—was that there would be a net cost of about £8,500,000. No doubt it may be a little more now, thanks to the delay which has happened, but that figure gives an idea of the expense which, it is contemplated, will ultimately be incurred. On the other hand, it is not intended to standardise the whole country at once. Therefore, the whole expense will not be incurred in the first instance. It is a considerable sum of money, and the question of the provision of the necessary sinking fund and interest to cover that expenditure has naturally been considered very carefully. The capital cost is included in the financial provisions of the Bill and in the Money Resolution passed by the House. It is included in the £33,500,000 which the Board is authorised to borrow. But that only involves the immediate payment of the sum and we have still to decide who will ultimately find the money.
It seems to the Government there are three possible alternatives as to the Persons who should be asked to pay. Quite definitely we decided at an early stage that it was not fair to ask the State as a whole to bear that cost. That is a suggestion which the Treasury refused to sanction and the Government decided it would be an unreasonable burden to put upon the taxpayers of the country. This proposal is going to improve matters in regard to the cost electricity and thus benefit the people who consume electricity rather than the general body of taxpayers. There remain still the questions whether or not the expense should be borne by the particular district in which the standardisation has
been ordered; whether it should be borne by the people inside the area of a scheme at a particular moment; or whether it should be borne by the general body of consumers of electricity throughout the country. Those are the three remaining alternatives, and on them different people take different views. There was expressed in Committee a very strong view that it would not be fair to place the whole burden upon the particular area to be standardised, and the arguments which supported that view seemed to me to be unanswerable. If you could prove that standardisation of frequency benefited only the area in which the standardisation took place, then it would be reasonable and proper that the people in that area should be asked to bear the cost, but of course that is not true.
Standardisation is not in itself so great an advantage. The advantage at which we aim is interconnection, and standardisation is only a means necessary to obtain that end, and the advantage of interconnection is just as much with the areas which are already on the frequency to which a particular area is being altered as it is with the area which is being altered. Therefore it seemed to us plain that it would not be fair to ask Birmingham, for example, to alter its own standardisation at its own cost when the object and effect of the alteration would be to benefit not merely Birmingham but other districts to whose standard the Birmingham standard was being raised. Thus the first alternative was ruled out. Then came the discussion as to whether it would be fairer to place the expense on the people inside the area of a scheme only or on the general consumers. Those hon. Members who were on the Committee will recollect that the general view, indeed, I think, the universal view, expressed there was that it should be placed on the general body of consumers.
That view was justified on the ground, first, that the Bill as drafted does not propose that one scheme for the whole country should be brought into effect at once. It contemplates and indeed provides that there are to be successive schemes for different parts of the country with the ultimate object of linking up the whole country. It would seem very unfair that if Birmingham, taking it as an illustration, and one adjoining district
formed part of the scheme, those two districts should bear the whole cost of standardising one of them, when the ultimate object of standardisation was not to benefit those districts but to make them part of an organic whole—the whole country—which was ultimately to be interconnected and which would, therefore, ultimately benefit all over from the standardisation in those districts. There is also a point which I think is material in the minds of some hon. Members—that the mere fact of standardisation will at once cheapen the cost of electricity. It will render possible that mass production which is one of the secrets of reduced expenditure, and therefore will benefit all those parts of the country which are using plants of the standard frequency whether they are immediately included in a scheme or not. On those grounds, the Committee seemed to take the view, and indeed asked the Government to accept the view, that the expense should be borne by the whole body of consumers of electricity.
There remains only the question of how the expense should be spread over that body. Amendments were set down in Committee—one, I think, in the name of the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) and the other, I think, in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton)—which provided that the cost should be an expense of the Electricity Commissioners, and therefore should be borne in the same way as the other expenses of the Electricity Commissioners—that is, in proportion to the units consumed. Objection was taken to that proposal on the ground that the power supplied to various industries was, in proportion, very much larger than the number of units supplied for lighting and similar purpose, and that, further, it was being supplied in large quantities at a very advantageous time and at a very low price and a very low margin above cost. It was argued, if you loaded those charges with the extra expense of standardisation, you would render it impossible to continue to supply the industrial enterprises which were taking power current at the existing price. It was suggested to the Government and, I think, outside the Government, that the fairer way of apportioning the cost to the consumers was to apportion it in proportion to the sale on the basis of the revenue received.
We propose, therefore, that the revenue should be the basis on which the apportionment should take place. That is the scheme embodied in the Amendment which is now before the House. We ask for a provision that the Electricity Commissioners shall repay each year the interest and sinking fund. I cannot say exactly how much the sum will be. It is a difficult sum to work out, but taking the estimate I have already mentioned and reckoning 5 per cent. for interest and 1 per cent. for sinking fund, you would have 6 per cent. on about £8,000,000. Whatever the sum may be, the total expenditure so to be borne in each year should be spread over the whole of the revenue received from the sale of electricity and apportioned between the different suppliers of electricity in that proportion. It will be said: "If you charge that expenditure you increase the price"; and I agree. You cannot have this expenditure without, to that extent, increasing the price, but the whole hypothesis of this Bill is that the net result of it, taking into account all expenses, including this expense, will be to cheapen the cost of electricity materially. Although it is true that you will slightly increase the cost of electricity by the infinitesimal fraction of a penny which will have to be put on to each unit by this expense, you will reduce the cost by more than that amount by the saving which will ultimately result from this scheme.

Mr. HARDIE: Which is also hypothetical.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: Certainly; the hon. Member is quite right. It is quite true that if anybody thinks this Bill is not going to reduce the cost of electricity, then obviously he cannot think it is going to benefit the consumers. We are going only on the basis that we are satisfied, by such advice as we have been able to obtain and such experience as the rest of the world has had, that electricity is cheapened by interconnection and by generating at the most suitable places in the way provided for by the Bill. It is only for that reason the Bill has ever been introduced. If it were not going to cheapen electricity there would be no point in bringing it forward. We are satisfied that it will do so, and on that assumption we are bound to proceed. The only question
which we are here determining is how this particular item of expenditure shall be apportioned, and we have brought before the House, in pursuance of the promise which I gave to the Committee, the plan which we believe to be the best, and which certainly is also the one which the Committee thought was best when the question was being discussed before them.

Mr. HANNON: I would like to bring to the notice of the House the danger of this proposal operating very unfairly on certain of the great electrical undertakings in this country. In electrical production Greater London provides one-fifth of the actual output of current in this country, and under this proposal, therefore, Greater London will have to bear one-fifth of the total cost involved in bringing about standardisation schemes. While in entire agreement with my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General that this Bill will reorganise the whole possibilities of the development of this industry in the country, and will on that basis certainly reduce prices, it will nevertheless take a great deal of argument on his part to convince London consumers that they are deriving positive and direct benefits for the cost of bringing about standardisation either in Birmingham or on the North-East Coast. I am all for taking all possible expenditure off Birmingham; I think it would he most undesirable that one centre should he charged the whole expenditure incurred in bringing about standardisation in it, but, at the same time, we have to consider the extent to which the charges for the expenses of the Electricity Commisioners will be increased in the case of certain undertakings in London. Taking the proportion of £8,500,000, and assuming that that amount was spent within a comparatively short period of time, it would mean that the electrical industry of Greater London would be responsible for the provision of one-fifth of the total liability for interest and sinking fund, and I am informed that, if it were worked out in the case of particular undertakings, it would increase their present responsibility to the Electricity Commissioners by ten or eleven fold.
I hope every Member of this House will do everything possible to facilitate the
operation of this scheme in the country, but I do not think I can give a silent vote on this Amendment or allow it to be passed without calling the attention of the House to the effect which the Amendment is bound to have on the charges for the distribution of electricity by certain undertakers in those districts far removed from the centres where standardisation will have to be brought about. While everybody desires—and my hon. Friends above the Gangway here, who have been somewhat critical during the course of this Debate, equally desire, I am sure—that everything possible should be done to facilitate electrical production in this country in the future, at the same time it seems a little unfair that in the arrangement of the cost of getting out these changes so much should fall upon enterprises which are already very heavily burdened with charges in their own areas. Therefore, while in no way obstructing the passage of the Amendment, I hope it will he borne in mind that in the development of this great national scheme, existing enterprises are bearing a very substantial part of the cost.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: I should like to join my hon. Friend the Member for the Moseley Division (Mr. Hannon) in drawing the attention of the House to what I must call the harsh manner in which this Amendment will operate in connection with the London companies. The London companies have, after all, gone ahead during the past five or six years with their various schemes, and they would have gone ahead more quickly if it had not been that they have been interfered with by the Government. I am not altogether complaining of that but that is the fact. First of all, there was the War, then there was the appointment, in 1919, of the Electricity Commissioners, and then there was the question of bringing schemes forward for increasing output in London, which unfortunately, through various vicissitudes, were held up by the fact of the Commissioners having been appointed. They naturally, having a new position with regard to generation and distribution of electricity in London, were very particular, in going through all the various points, to see that every care was taken, but that does not do away with the fact that London was held up with regard to its current. The Barking station, which was opened by His Majesty
in May of last year with a generation of 100,000 kilowatts, would have been, in the ordinary course of events, open and working several years previously, and, therefore, I join issue with my hon. Friends of the Labour party on this question, and aver that the London companies have done their best under very difficult circumstances to increase the necessary output of electricity for the purposes of lighting, of power, and of assisting the industrial areas.
The right hon. and learned Attorney-General drew attention to the fact that £8,500,000 is placed on one side for standardisation, but many of us think that that sum will eventually be found to be very much less than the entire cost of standardisation. Only time can tell, of course, but considering that it is going to be based, as the right hon. Gentleman says, on the revenue accruing to the various concerns, it will involve an expenditure, based on 5 per cent. plus 1 per cent. sinking fund, which will result in increasing the cost to the London companies by £100,000 per annum. I am always being told that the more you generate, the cheaper will be the price. I have always been a great believer in generation in bulk and have always thought that many of the small companies should confine their activities to distribution. I have always said that many of these small undertakings would have to be shut down, but I want to join with my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley in drawing attention to the fact that this scheme is not an unmixed blessing with regard to London, and that, on the contrary, London will be called upon to bear a very large proportion of the cost of standardisation.

Mr. BURMAN: The passage of this Amendment will remove, so far as Birmingham is concerned, the chief objection to this Bill. Many years ago we deliberately adopted a standard of frequency which has been very successful, and if we are compelled under this Bill to change it, it is only reasonable that the whole country should share in the expense of so doing. We are perfectly satisfied to go on as we are. I fully sympathise with the protests of the London representatives. The charges will be very heavy, and I believe that they will be much heavier than is anticipated by some of the experts. The
charges will be so heavy that if some provision of this sort were not made it would be impossible for a single district like Birmingham, for instance, to bear the enormous charges brought about by the standardisation of frequency. I am very grateful to the learned Attorney-General for having brought this Amendment forward. I appreciate the delicacy of the position and also the difficulty that the Government have found in framing the Amendment fairly. At the same time, I must repeat that it will remove, so far as Birmingham is concerned, the chief objection to this Bill.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, in line 2, after the word "meet," to insert the words
any such expenses or advances as aforesaid including.
I agree that if the thing that is proposed in the Bill is to be done at all, this is probably the most equitable way of doing it, and I said something of the kind in Committee. Hon. Members who have spoken have indicated the kind of difficulty which will have to be incurred even under this, which is admitted to be the only possible, way of carrying out the Government's proposals. Birmingham is relieved, but London is feeling perturbed at the prospect of paying for other people's advantages. There is no reason at all why Manchester or South-East Lancashire should have to pay for the conversion of the North-East Coast, and one of the extraordinary anomalies of the whole thing is that the North-East Coast, which has some 20 stations leading into a locally standardised common system, has the cheapest supply in the country, and is admitted to be the most highly developed and the most efficient area in the country, and yet is one of those parts of the country that is singled out in the Weir Report to be changed over to some other frequency at the cost of the whole country. Even in America, which has been so often quoted, they have two frequencies. In the city of New York there are two frequencies, and no proposal has been made to change them to one, yet here, if this is to be done at all within the meaning of this Amendment, possibly two of the most efficient areas in the country are to be upset. Obviously it cannot be done at their own expense.
It must be done at the general or national expense, and to do such a thing is one of the elements of nationalisation which creeps into this scheme.
I say it with great respect and without any desire to misrepresent or mislead anybody's opinion, but nothing but a national scheme, forced by a national Government, could be imposed in such a way. The whole of the consumers of electricity in this country are to be charged with an expenditure which in certain small cases will improve the supply in the area and in other cases will involve no improvement in the locality, and no evidence has been adduced, either in Committee, in Debate, or in any other way, to show that there will be any advantage accruing to the consumers of electricity generally as a result of this expense. The Weir Report does state that they believe it can only be done at the cost of the National Exchequer, but the Government quite rightly ran away from that, and we are now faced with the only possible way of doing this thing, if it is to be done at all. There are cases where a change over is necessary. I am informed by the South-East Lancashire Advisory Board that in their area there are some four small undertakings which in due course ought to be changed over if they are to be efficiently supplied, but they only produce some 5 per cent. of the total consumption in that district. To do it would be an advantage for the undertakings concerned and their consumers. The cost is not a big thing, and if that district were treated for purposes of this kind as an entity and charged only for the expenditure which is properly incurred by the Board in relation to that district, that district would reap advantages which would defray the cost incurred. There would be no need to spread over the whole of the consumers of the country the cost of standardisation of the few remaining parts of the South-East Lancashire district, and there would be no need, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) has pointed out, to charge consumers all over the country with the cost of standardising an undertaking which has been quoted on several occasions in this House.
This Amendment is necessary, sound as it is in the circumstances, because one of the fundamental principles of the Bill
is ridiculous and has been shown to be ridiculous, to all who are actively, and not merely theoretically, engaged in the electrical industry. That is where the House is going wrong on this Bill. Too much attention is being paid to the theorists, who are not directly engaged in the daily running of these undertakings. Those are the people to whom chief attention is being given. They are the people to whom the Government have risen from first to last, but to those who, like the hon. Member for Hampstead—I do not profess to be an expert of any kind—who has devoted a life's work to the development of this kind of thing, who knows these difficulties at first hand, and has told the House time after time what are the facts experienced by himself and by others who are engaged in a similar way, the Government say, "No, we prefer the theorists of Victoria Street to the practical men of the Provinces," although the consumers in London, Manchester and other parts of the country are going to pay for the so-called standardisation, which has not been shown by any fact or argument so far produced to be necessary or to offer any consequential benefit.
Having said that in the circumstances the Amendment proposed by the Attorney-General is unfortunately the only thing that can be done, I would ask him to round it off, and make it a little more complete, by accepting the Amendment in my name. I think that can be shown to be necessary from the point of view of drafting, because earlier in this Clause the Board may meet the expenses or they may make advances for the purpose of the Clause, and it is not quite clear that those expenses or advances would really be covered by interest and sinking fund on the money borrowed. It is, quite obviously, a drafting point, and if these words are not put in, my right hon. Friend will find that his intention is not fully covered, because his Amendment only relates to borrowed money, and it may be that certain general funds of the Board might be brought into play.

Mr. BURMAN: I beg to second the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am advised that this Amendment to the pro-
posed Amendment is not necessary, and, indeed, might lead to difficulty. The House will realise that the whole of the expense which the Board incur in connection with standardisation of frequency will be paid out of the moneys which they get under Clause 24, and, therefore, the only charges to be recovered will necessarily be the interest and sinking fund charges in respect of money so borrowed. If it be intended by my hon. Friend's Amendment to put any other part of the Board's expenses in this matter on to the general consumers, that does not seem to be reasonable, because we propose that all expenses other than these sums incurred in defraying the actual cost of standardisation are to be part of the expenses of the Board to be borne as proposed in the Bill. For that reason, the Government are advised that the Amendment to the Amendment is not necessary to achieve the end which, I think, my hon. Friend has in mind, and might open the door to a wider construction than I think he intends, and certainly I intend.

Sir J. NALL: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment to the proposed Amendment.
Amendment to proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question again proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. BALFOUR: We are now, I take it, back to the Amendment of my right hon. Friend. I would like to say that this Amendment raises the whole question dealt with at some length by my hon. Friend, which I do not intend to pursue, because if I went over the whole question of standardisation, it would probably take me beyond the Rules of Order. But I should like, in passing, to indicate on that problem the whole difficulty with which the House will be faced over a series of years. It is only a few years ago that I remember Sir Eric Geddes standing at that box, and referring to the grave necessity of having standardised frequency for the railways.
Yet we have in this Bill the words:
Notwithstanding anything in this Section, a railway company shall not be required to alter the frequency employed by them.
I only give that illustration. Hon. Members must remember that we were
weighed down in those Coalition days by Sir Eric Geddes who was the Minister of Transport, or designate Minister of Transport—I forget which—on this question of standardisation. To-day we find a special provision in this Bill that it shall not apply to railways. My reason for introducing that point is simply to illustrate the expenses to be distributed over all authorities are for purposes, many of which to-day are irreconcilable with the needs of the community. Given the test of time, the arguments which have been adduced upstairs and in this House, and are being adduced by me now in connection with this, will be found to be in the main true, that we are putting on the Statute Book a mass of complicated details which will hamper rather than help those things which would facilitate the peace, comfort and prosperity of the people.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. SPEAKER: The next two Amendments on the Order Paper [in page 10, line 38, after the word "expenses," to insert the words "losses or damages," and in line 39, after the word "incurred," to insert the words "or sustained"] are consequential.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 10, line 42, to leave out from the word "Commissioners," to the word "be" in page 11, line 6, and to insert instead thereof the words
or at the option of the authorised undertakers or owners.
This is an Amendment designed to remove a difficulty indicated in Committee owing to an Amendment there moved, and accepted by myself. Under the Bill as it now stands, a decision as to the amount of the expenses has to be given by the Electricity Commissioners, and then there is an appeal from the Commissioners to the arbitrator appointed under the Bill. That is an undesirable position, we think, in which to put the Electricity Commissioners. On the other hand, as we did accept the principle of an appeal in this Clause, I do not think it would be right or fair that I should ask the House to go back upon it, and, in order to meet that difficulty, we are asking the House to give to any aggrieved person the option of either going to the Electricity Commissioners or the arbitrator, whichever he prefers, but to which-
ever he goes, he is bound by the decision arrived at. I think that is a fair way out of the difficulty.

Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 11, line 13, at the end, to insert the words
Provided that nothing in this Section shall prevent the Board and the authorised undertakers or owners concerned from entering into an agreement fixing the sum to be taken in discharge of the liability of the Board to the undertakers or owners under this Section.
This is only a drafting Amendment, in order that what we have just done should not have any effect which is not intended. I am merely proposing the proviso in order to allow the Board and the authorised undertakers to come to an agreement. It is not amending the Bill.

Mr. HARDIE: I would like to ask what will be the position in regard to the case of Ealing, which I have been asked to bring forward?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If the hon. Gentleman refers to a liability that has already arisen owing to a change of frequency already ordered, that will not be affected by the Bill. It will remain under the Act of 1919.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Amendment stood on the Order Paper in the name of Sir J. NALL:

"In page 11, line 13, at the end, to insert the words
() Notwithstanding anything in this Section where any authorised undertakers have, between the passing of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the passing of this Act, altered the frequency employed in the whale of their undertaking to such frequency as may be the standard frequency provided by the scheme within the area of which that undertaking, or any substantial part of the undertaking, is situate then either of the following provisions as the Board may determine shall have effect, viz.:

(a) the Board shall repay to those undertakers all expenses properly incurred by them in so altering the frequency employed in the whole of their undertaking; or
(b) those undertakers shall be relieved from contributing to any sums paid by the Board under the foregoing provisions of this Section towards or on account of the expenses referred to in Sub-section (1) of this Section."

Mr. SPEAKER: The subject of this Amendment, I think, has been settled.

Sir J. NALL: This is in relation to conversion which took place before the provisions of this Bill operate.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then it would hardly come within the scope of the Bill.

Sir J. NALL: The scheme may require a certain standardisation in a particular area. Some of that may have been carried out just prior to the promulgation of the scheme, and the intention of this Amendment is that those who have done that should not suffer in consequence.

Mr. BALFOUR: I think you, Sir, will see that this is quite in order. The object is that where, under the 1919 Act, voluntarily there has been carried out standardisation in a given area, the authorities who have just carried out that standardisation should not be called upon to contribute to the standardisation of all the other authorities in the country where the frequency has to be changed. There are two alternatives in the Amendment, which leaves it open as to the method in which it is to be treated. There is, obviously, great injustice in having to make provision over many years to pay off debt incurred in standardisation, and at the same time have to pay for the standardisation of others.

Colonel ASHLEY: Is it not outside the scope of the Bill to discuss an Amendment proposing that money shall be paid for expense incurred by standardisation in 1920?

Mr. BALFOUR: That has already been covered. It will only relieve those people who are still paying the debt which they have incurred in effecting standardisation, so that they will not be called upon to pay for the standardisation of someone else. I think it is one of the gravest injustices that could be perpetrated, and certainly the matter ought to come within the scope of the Bill. I quite agree that the direct payment to relieve this or that particular undertaker under the first paragraph may be outside the scope of the Bill.

Sir F. HALL: Might I suggest that the hon. Member would be in order if he moved this Amendment without paragraph (a)?

Sir J. NALL: I shall be quite willing to strike out that paragraph, and move the Amendment in that form.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think that must be done, and it will then be in order.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. SCURR: On a further point of Order. I desire to submit that this proposed Amendment, if carried, would have the effect of benefiting certain undertakings. I also submit that the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) is a director of an undertaking which has already carried out this work and that his connection in this matter does not entitle him to move.

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not raise any question. A Member is entitled to move an Amendment which is in order. The question of voting is another matter. Moving is quite in order.

Sir J. NALL: I think the speeches have already explained that point.

Mr. BALFOUR: On a point of Order. I think the Amendment would require to leave out the words "either of" in line 6, and "those" in paragraph (b). "The following provisions" remains, and "as the Board may determine" goes out. In paragraph (b) it will then read "the undertakers shall be".

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 11, line 13, at the end, to insert the words
() Notwithstanding anything in this Section where any authorised undertakers have, between the passing of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, and the passing of this Act, altered the frequency employed in the whole of their undertaking to such frequency as may be the standard frequency provided by the scheme within the area of which that undertaking, or any substantial part of the undertaking is situate, those undertakers shall be relieved from contributing to any sums paid by the Board under the foregoing provisions of this Section towards or on account of the expenses referred to in Sub-section (1) of this Section.
It was suggested that this is to relieve undertakers. The object is to relieve the consumers who have to pay according to the costs incurred by the undertakings. In districts where the present charges are based upon the expenditure already incurred by the undertaking, it is obviously unfair, where those charges are imposed through some recently carried-out conversion, it is unfair that those consumers should pay a second time for a conversion elsewhere. This Amendment is simply common fairness. Suppose that under the operation of the 1919 provisions
some district is required to carry out a minor change over at its own expense by order of the Commissioners. Suppose it is shortly afterwards called upon to pay a contribution to the Central Board or the Commissioners in respect of conversions carried out elsewhere. As that district has had to pay the cost of its own change over it is obviously unfair that it should be charged with a share of other people's change over while not participating in relief from the general fund.

Mr. MacLAREN: There are no such cases.

Sir J. NALL: Yes. A change over is now taking place in Ealing. [An HON. MEMBER: "Where is the right hon. Member for Ealing?"]

Sir HERBERT NIELD: The right hon. Member for Ealing is here, and in communication with the town authorities who have not mentioned this matter to him at all. This is a purely voluntary interference.

Sir J. NALL: I am sure the right hon. Member for Ealing would make himself heard if there were any cause for complaint. If a change over is now taking place in that locality at the expense of the local undertaking, reimbursed by a refund levied on the consumers, is it fair to those consumers in the near future to have to pay a share in the cost of change overs in other districts? Either they should be reimbursed, which Mr. Speaker has ruled out of order, or they should be relieved from contributing. It is perfectly obvious and common justice

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
There can be no question as to the fairness of the proposal made. To ask people to accept the burden imposed under this Bill of changing over frequency—let us say, in parts of Glasgow or Birmingham or North-East counties—where one undertaking, having entailed a burden in an endeavour to be progressive, is to have again to pay, is something in regard to which I hope the Attorney-General will feel he has no difficulty whatever in acceding to this simple request for common justice to tens of thousands of people who have invested their money in these undertakings. It is quite immaterial to me as a personal matter whether this
Amendment is accepted or not. Hon. Members do not come here to press things in which they are interested by some personal motive. A case has been mentioned of an area in which a change over was made rapidly, and having done this service in that area and shown the greatest progress, is it to be said that that undertaking is to be saddled, in addition to that cost, with another area altogether such as the Clyde Valley or the North-East areas? I do not think that that can be suggested by any hon. Member who can at the same time stand up for common justice and equity.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Although the hon. Member who has just sat down said that no Member in this House could state the arguments against this proposal and yet admit either equity or justice, I am going to essay what he looked on as such a difficult task. If it were a fact that any undertaker had been compelled to change his frequency under the Act of 1919 and had had to do so at his own expense, then there might be something for the view that, inasmuch as other people were now being differently treated, lie ought to be in some way recouped.

Mr. BALFOUR: The Amendment does not ask for recoupment at all. That has been struck out. All it asks is that these various systems which have already changed should not be asked to pay again for a change-over in other systems.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I perfectly understand the Amendment. If any authorised undertaking had been compelled against its will to change its frequency and bear the expense of so doing, there might be something to be said for its having a claim to be recouped. But, in fact, there is no such undertaking in existence, because it has never happened that any undertaking has been compelled to change its frequency by the Commissioners under the Act of 1919. What has happened is that there are various undertakers who have seen financial profit to be gained by changing their frequency. They have then applied to the Commissioners because it was a profitable thing to do and have obtained that leave and carried out the change they desired. I have no doubt that their business acumen will be justified in the result. But why they should be in a different position from any other undertaker who always had the frequency
which is to be the standard one and did not have to change over—why they should be in a different position from other undertakers I do not see. In order to benefit not one area but all areas, not one undertaker but all undertakers, there is to be a change in certain specified areas. Therefore, it is fair that the cost of effecting the change against the will of the undertaker in the one area shall be equally borne by all the undertakers. If that be a logical proposal—and the House has already accepted it—there can be no reason for saying that out of all the undertakers who are to benefit by the change those undertakers who happen to have started with the wrong frequency and have had to change over should have no share in the cost to the community as a whole. The only question is how ought you to spread the burden of changing frequency where you are compelling it to be changed over for the purpose of the scheme? The view we take is that it should be spread over.

Mr. ATTLEE: I am glad that the Attorney-General is resisting this Amendment. We all know that there is more joy over one sinner that repenteth than over 99 just persons, but I do think that there is a little hardship on the just persons under this Bill. I am a member of a local authority where we have always had the right frequency and we are prepared to assist in bearing the cost. I think, however, it is simply outrageous that we should be asked to pay for the mistakes of these other people. We may have to do it in this case, because it is a matter of necessity, but that we should have to go back to past mistakes and reward them is perfectly outrageous.

Mr. HERBERT: The hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) can scarcely have realised the alteration that has been made in the Amendment before the House. We are not asking that those who have changed their frequency should be paid the cost of making the change, but merely that they should be relieved of their proportion of the cost of making the change in the case of other undertakings. It must be obvious to the hon. Member that the amount of benefit which an undertaking which has made the change already will receive under this Amendment must be very much less than
the cost of making the change, which would have been paid to them if they had made it under this Bill.

Mr. ATTLEE: Does not the hon. Member also realise that the benefit to those who have made the change will be a great deal less than the amount they have to pay for the mistakes of other people?

Mr. HERBERT: I think it is quite clear that the hon. Member's suggestion that this is outrageous is ridiculous—if we are to use words of that kind. But may I come to the Attorney-General's arguments against this Amendment? They are, if I may say so with respect, as clever as we should expect them to be from him, but if a perfectly plain man may try to state the matter in perfectly plain words, the real fact is that in resisting this Amendment he is proposing to handicap very severely indeed those who have had the foresight to do what he is proposing to force other people to do and is going to pay them to do. That is a perfectly simple proposition, and I think, as a matter of pure equity, that the ordinary man in the street is much more likely to sympathise with this view than to adopt the somewhat elaborate argument of the Attorney-General. There is one question I would like to have answered from the Treasury Bench. I understood the Attorney-General to say that no undertakings had made this change under compulsion. A few minutes before that the Minister of Transport, when Ealing was referred to, interjected the observation that they were doing it under compulsion.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: No; the Minister of Transport said just the opposite. He said they were not doing it under compulsion.

Mr. HERBERT: Then I apologise. If those people who have made the change have made it for good business reasons, surely that is not an argument for penalising them. The object of this Bill, I understand, is to improve the business of electrical undertakings generally, and it is a poor sort of encouragement to those engaged in the industry if the man who fails to do the right thing is to be made to do it and to be paid for doing it, whilst the man who has done the right thing is left to bear the expense of it
himself. I can only sincerely hope that if, under the peculiar circumstances of this House at the present time, the Government successfuly resist this Amendment, that when the Bill eventually does become law it will be found to have received a greater measure of equity and justice in another place.

Mr. HARDIE: The hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall) made a reference to Ealing a few moments ago. Happening to be a practical man, I have been requested by a number of people in Ealing to bring forward the case of Ealing in relation to this point. The change there will be made in sections, and all lamps and plants on consumers' premises will be changed free of cost. The Attorney-General has said already that that will not come into the purview of this Bill, but what the Ealing people who have written to me are concerned about is what is to happen next? A deputation of Ealing people came to me in the Lobby to ask whether, after the change had been made, there was any likelihood that they would be compelled to make yet another change, because in that case the cost was going to prove pretty heavy. Mr. J. D. Knight, the Borough Electrical Engineer of Ealing, has given the assurance that the cost of everything to the individuals concerned is going to be met by the Council, but there will he the cost to the ratepayers generally. Though I do not represent Ealing, I have been asked by the Ealing people—I have the misfortune to live in Ealing, and to be misrepresented there—to put this point, that if there is to be another change-over in frequency in the course of another year or two, the rates in Ealing will certainly go up.

Sir H. NIELD: I have listened with amazement to a cunningly devised speech which should try to assume, or lead this House to assume, that I am oblivious to the wants of my constituents— —

Mr. HARDIE: Not at all.

Sir H. NIELD: —and that Ealing has to depend upon the activities of the hon. Member for Springburn (Mr. Hardie), whose own Division, I should have thought, ought to be quite sufficient for his activities. Some weeks ago I had occasion to meet the Chairman of the Electricity Committee of the Town Council
of Ealing, and it was I who asked him whether or not the Council had any views on this Electricity Bill which they desired me to put before the House. Some time afterwards I received from the Town Clerk a letter, which I have here, in which he said he had no communication to make to me other than to ask me to support the recommendations of the Association of Municipal Boroughs. Therefore, any interference on the part of the hon. Member for Springburn is totally—

Mr. HARDIE: On a point of Order. I want to know if it is in order to say that it is interference by an hon. Member when he brings before the House a point which he has been requested to put forward—for though the point concerns the people in one particular part of the country, it is a question of national interest we are discussing? I have the misfortune to live at 55, Barnfield Road, Ealing, and I submit that it cannot be said that I am interfering, or "shooting my neck out" as he calls it, though it is a strange thing that a Member for Scotland has to be appealed to to get things attended to in England.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Captain FitzRoy): It appears to me that the whole of this discussion is entirely out of order.

Sir H. NIELD: I repudiate as warmly as a human being can repudiate the suggestion of the hon. Member for Spring-burn, and I question his authority to mention the case of Ealing in this House.

Mr. HARDIE: I wish to protest against—

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: This point is not relevant to the Amendment.

Mr. HARDIE: Might I be allowed to read to the Members of the House one letter only which I have received on this question, and I will give the names and addresses?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member must select another occasion.

Sir F. HALL: I am a little disappointed that the Attorney General is not in a position to accept his Amendment in its modified form. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that those who had received benefit from standardisation of frequency should pay. May I point out
that some of these people are not receiving any benefit at all because they have to change their frequency, and the standard will probably be that which has already been referred to. If those who are to receive the benefit have to pay how about the authorised undertakers who have decided the frequency which is to be adopted? Those who have in operation the same frequency which is to be standardised are not going to receive any benefit at all. I suggest that those who have the frequency in operation which has been accepted as the standard should not be called upon to pay.
I am rather surprised that a Government such as we have in power at the present time should turn a deaf ear to the suggestion which has been made in this Amendment, because I have always recognised that the present Government is prepared to act honestly and justly by all parties. Therefore the manner in which this Amendment has been received is rather disappointing to many of us, as it lends colour to the idea that the whole of this Bill is nationalisation or tending towards it; at any rate it is a first cousin if it is not actually nationalisation. Therefore, I think that the proposal contained in this Amendment might be accepted. This is one of the most reasonable Amendments which could he brought forward, because we are only asking that those who are not going to have any benefit shall not pay.
Amendment negatived.
Amendment made: In page 11, line 28, at the end, insert the words
(c) Where a scheme under Section four of this Act has come into force as respect any area, the powers of the Electricity Commissioners under Section twenty-four of the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, so far as they relate to the amendment or alteration of frequency, shall not he exerciseable within that area."—[The Attorney-General.]

Sir J. GRANT: I beg to move, in page 11, line 28, at the end, to insert the words
(c) no authorised undertaker from whom any tramway company derives a supply of electricity for the purposes of haulage or traction, shall be required by the Board to alter the frequency of the supply delivered by them to the tramway company unless and until regulations have been previously made by the Minister of Transport authorising the use of electricity of such altered frequency on the undertaking of the tram-
way company, which regulations the Minister of Transport is hereby authorised to make in like manner as any regulations which may be made by him with reference to the working of the traffic on the said undertaking by electrical power.
I hope that the Attorney-General will be able to accept this Amendment, the object of which is to secure that tramway companies shall be treated in the same manner as railway companies.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
I think a similar Amendment to this has already been accepted with regard to railways. In many districts on the North-East Coast and in the Clyde Valley there are a number of rotary converter machines operating at 40 cycles and 25 cycles which will all have to be changed unless this Amendment is accepted. A similar proposal to this has been accepted for the same reason in the case of railways.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think this Amendment is quite unnecessary. It is true that there is special treatment in regard to railway companies because they are already under statutory obligations with regard to changes of frequency, and that fact has to be recognised and safeguarded. I would like to point out, however, that tramway companies are under no such obligation, and in nearly every case the tramway company works on a direct current, and, therefore, no question of change of frequency arises.

Mr. BALFOUR: There is one railway at any rate which works on alternating current carried on overhead wires although in other cases the current is converted from the alternating to direct current.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not sure how many of such railways there are but at any rate special provision is made for them under the Railway Act.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

CLAUSE 10.—(Obligation of Board to supply electricity to authorised undertakers.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 11, line 29, to leave out from the word "Board," to the first word "the," in line 31, and to insert instead thereof the words
as respects any area or part of an area notify that they are in a position to supply electricity.
This is practically a drafting Amendment, and its object is to enable the Board to start in respect of any part of an area as soon as it is ready to supply that area, even if the scheme has not been completed in respect of the whole area.
Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 11, line 33, after the word "area," insert the words "or part thereof."—[The Attorney-General]

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 11, line 38, after the word "that," to insert the words
subject to the provisions of this Act relating to the rights of owners of selected stations.
This Amendment is to make clear what everyone would desire to see provided, namely, that the owner of a selected station is to be entitled to buy the energy of that station from the Board irrespective of whether the station is in a power company's area, or a joint electricity authority's area, or any other area. It is obviously intended that the owner shall be in a position so to do, but it might be doubtful unless these words are inserted. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) has a similar Amendment down.

Mr. BALFOUR: I do not want to debate this Amendment, but I should like to call attention to the fact that it does very materially alter the Clause as it stands. Does the Attorney-General really intend that? The Clause as thus amended would provide that the Board shall not
supply electricity directly to authorised undertakers situated in the area of supply of a power company without the consent of the power company unless the undertakers have an absolute right of veto….
subject to the provisions of this Act relating to the rights of owners of selected stations. I am not going to press the point, but I should like to make the observation that I think there is more in this Amendment than the House might imagine from what my right hon. Friend has said.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 11, line 42, to leave out from the word "company" to the word "or" in page 12, line 4.
I should explain that this Amendment deals with the provision that the Board shall not supply electricity direct to an authorised undertaker situated in the area of supply of a power company without the consent of that power company. Then follow the words which I am proposing to leave out, namely:
unless the undertakers have an absolute right of veto on any right of the power company to supply electricity within the area of supply of those undertakers or any part thereof;
Then it goes on again to say:
Or unless the power company are unable or unwilling to supply electricity"—
and so on. When this Clause came before the Committee, the provision that the Board should not supply electricity to authorised undertakers in the area of supply of a power company without their consent was only qualified by the words which I am now proposing to leave out; but there was added in Committee a further qualification, namely, that relating to the power company being unable or unwilling to supply electricity on reasonable terms and so on. I venture to hope that the Minister in charge of the Bill will accept this Amendment, and that, having got the qualification which was put in during the Committee stage, he will consent to leave out the first one.
There is this to be said for the power companies, and it is right that the House should remember it, that, under their particular Acts, a large number of corporations and local authorities, who were authorised distributors, obtained an absolute veto on the rights of the power company to supply electricity within the area. Many of those local authorities, however, so far from exercising that veto, are, in fact, actually drawing supplies from these power companies, or are about to do so. That being so, it seems rather unreasonable that the existence of this old right of veto, which is rather a technical matter, should he used to hamper the power companies in circumstances of this kind. I would submit that it is quite sufficient in every case that the only conditions under which the Board should be authorised to supply electricity without
the consent of the power company should be that the power company is unable or unwilling to do it on reasonable terms and conditions, to be determined, in case of dispute, by the Electricity Commissioners. That seems to me to be very wide. If the Electricity Commissioners consider that the terms are in any way unreasonable, they can do without the consent of the power company. If, on the other hand, the power company is able and willing to do it on reasonable terms, as they are doing at the present time for undertakings which have the right of veto, I suggest that that is a sufficient qualification, and that the other may very well be left out.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amendment.
I gather that my right hon. Friend is not going to accept this Amendment, and, therefore, I shall be able to say what I have to say without waiting for his reasoned argument, knowing that my fate will be the same as on previous occasions. I know that my right hon. Friend is powerless to listen to arguments and make a concession unless the Executive who have this matter under control are prepared to issue their instructions to him, and that he has not received such instructions. Any hon. Member reading these words which my hon. Friend desires should be taken out, would imagine that there was a desire to interfere with any existing right of veto on a supply going into a district. That is not the case at all. This Amendment, while dealing, certainly, with those cases, in which few people are concerned at the moment, deals also with rights of veto in Provisional Orders and Acts of Parliament, which rights were put in many years ago in cases where in fact to-day the whole of the districts are receiving a supply in this way. In Lancashire, for instance, the power company, in relations of the greatest goodwill and amity with all the authorities, is to-clay giving some 40 local authorities the whole of their supply, admittedly on most economical terms; but the old right of veto still exists, so that it would be possible to forbid them to give that supply. The right of veto is not in practical effect, although it is still in the Provisional Order or Act of Parliament.
To leave these words in would assist the objects of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Having got a central board—and, moreover, a central trading board, notwithstanding all that my right hon. Friend has said—owning properties, they would be in a position to say, "Here are nest-eggs scattered about the place receiving bulk supplies, admittedly economically. We find that they have an old right of veto, and we can go back and say to them that they have that right of veto, and that we will give them a supply at a certain price." Under the protection of the guarantee they need not pay any interest for five years on the money used in affording the supply at a rate winch would be uncommercial and disastrous to any industry quoting it, whether it were a State industry or a private industry. They will thereby be able to go into those areas where this old right of veto exists, and absolutely cut out the supplier, possibly a local authority or, as in the case I have cited, a power company supplying municipal areas. In that case the power company or supply authority, whoever they may be, may know that the price quoted is too cheap, and that the authority is not doing it on a commercial basis, because they are not under the obligation to account for their interest for five years if they produce statistics and figures to show that the rate is a right rate, but in the meantime these areas can be taken away from the people who are giving the supply on most economical lines possible by any commercial organisation. The company will be powerless, and the business which has been created, where supplies have been afforded for many years, before there was any thought of central boards or any other authority, will be taken from them compulsorily under the provisions of this Section. My right hon. Friend cannot see his way to accept the Amendment, but I should like him to say a word or two, if possible, of explanation.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think I can disabuse my hon. Friend's mind and the mind of anyone who has been misled as to what seems to them to be the reason why I cannot accept the Amendment. My hon. Friend began by saying I could not accept it because I had received the orders of the Executive who control the Ministry. I do not even know who the Executive who control the Ministry are
supposed to be. The only Executive that controls the Ministry is the Cabinet, and I have received no orders of any kind from the Cabinet with regard to the Amendment, nor indeed have I received orders from anyone. I am going to ask the House to reject the Amendment for the same reason that I asked the Committee to reject it and for the same reason that the Committee, after hearing the matter very fully discussed, resolved that it was undesirable. Let me explain—because I am not sure that it is quite clear in this somewhat complicated Clause—what it is that we are discussing. Under Clause 10 the Board is bound to supply electricity to any authorised undertaker who asks for it. Then comes the proviso that the Board is not to be allowed to supply directly to authorised undertakers in the area of a power company without the power company's consent. That is to say, where Parliament has given a monopoly to a power company this Clause shall not interfere with it. The power company shall have the right to say it will be the intermediary between the Board and the undertakers within its own area, and of course there are provisions later on to prevent an undue price being charged.
Now then comes one condition. There are some power companies in whose area there exist undertakers, chiefly, I think, municipalities, which have a right to veto the entry of a power company into their town. There may be a town within the area of a power company and the position is that the local authority may say to the power company, "You shall not supply within this town," and what we are anxious to do is to preserve that right. Where you have a local authority which has the right at present to say to a power company, "You shall not supply in our town," we think it is right that we shall still maintain that position and allow that local authority to take its supply directly from the Board and not merely to allow the power company to come in and supply the current which the Board is willing to supply. What the mover and seconder desire is that in cases where such a veto exists, none the less the local authority in question shall not be allowed to exercise the veto but shall be compelled to take its supply through the intermediary of the power company. We do not think that is a
reasonable suggestion. The reason the seconder gave for the Amendment is in some way an encouraging one because he said if there was this right of the local authority to get current directly from the Board he knew what would happen. The Board would supply at a price with which the power company could not hope to compete.

Mr. BALFOUR: Not at all. I said they could supply owing to the fact that they would be in a position to quote a price which had no relation to the cost to themselves of manufacturing the electricity in order to take the business, knowing that they could correct the price in subsequent years.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: If my hon. Friend did not mean that the Board could quote a price with which the power company could not compete, I do not understand his argument. If he meant that he did think the Board would quote a price with which the power company could not compete but that the price would not be fixed on commercial lines, I would ask him to study a little more carefully the Bill to which he has devoted so much attention, because by Clause 11 the price the Board is allowed to charge is rigidly fixed and they cannot quote below commercial prices. Therefore the Board could only under-quote the power company if it were the fact that they could produce so much more cheaply than the power company could hope to do that the power company could not hope to compete. I think very likely that will happen and I quite think the effect of the Board supplying electricity under the scheme will be that electricity will be supplied much more cheaply than it can be generated outside the scheme. That is the object of the Bill.

Mr. BALFOUR: The difficulty—and I have had experience and proof of it already—is that quotations are made on a calculation which satisfies everyone but which is falsified in practice, and I have cases at present of calculations which have been submitted by public authorities which have been falsified in practice. They could not be justified in practice.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: In this case the. provisions are elaborately set out in Clause 11 for the fixing of the price and the Electricity Commissioners, whose competence and impartiality my hon.
Friend has said he does not challenge, have to be satisfied before the Board can fix the tariff. There is no reason to doubt that they will see to it that a proper price is fixed. There is no reason why a local authority, whose interest it is to get a cheap supply and who have a right at present to get it, should be debarred from it because the power company wants to supply at more expensive rates. On this ground we have carefully preserved the rights of the power company in all cases where it has at present a statutory right to supply electricity, and in cases where it has no such statutory right we see no reason why this obligation should be imposed.

Mr. ATTLEE: Of all the roles which the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) has played the most engaging is that of the philanthropist. The power company comes into an area and everything in the garden is lovely, current is supplied at the very lowest prices and it is all settled so nicely. But everyone knows it is the existence of the veto that has brought down the power company's price to something reasonable, and the endeavour of the Amendment is to sweep it away. It is clear that what the hon. Member is aiming at is to get, as far as he can, a monopoly in the area. I was rather interested to hear his assertion that the Ministry is in the hands of some executive. The Attorney-General seemed to wonder what that could be. We know perfectly well on this side because we are charged with it ourselves. Of course it is Moscow. They think the hidden hand of the Bolshevists has made the Chairman of the. Anti-Socialist Union introduce this Bill. Now he realises the credulity of hon. Members on the other side. The things they believe of us are the same as they believe of him.

Mr. KELLY: I rise because of the reference of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Balfour) to what is taking place in Lancashire. He refers to many of those municipal undertakings which are taking their bulk supply from a private company which operates in that part of the world. I notice he suggests that this right of veto that the municipalities possess should be taken away. I wonder what authority the hon. Member for Hampstead has either from Rochdale or any other of those
municipalities for supporting such an Amendment as is here suggested, if it means that veto is to be taken away from them. As far as we are concerned, we shall make a fight for the municipalities, to redeem their veto, and the only thing we feel sorry about is that they ever went to private companies even to secure their bulk supply.
Amendment negatived.

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move, in page 12, line 31, after the first word "Board," to insert the words
then, whether or not those undertakers are also the owners of a selected station.
The object of this Amendment is to provide an option for the undertaker to have a dispute as to costs settled either by the Electricity Commissioners or by an appeal tribunal. I think the House will agree with me that it is inexpedient to have an appeal from the Commissioners and, in addition, a hearing before an appeal tribunal. Therefore, the proposal in this Amendment is that the undertaker shall have an option to go to the Commissioners or to the appeal tribunal. The existing Clause was accepted in Committee upstairs by the Attorney-General on the understanding that he reserved his right to make an alternative suggestion. I am in the recollection of the House when I say that a previous Amendment on the same lines has been accepted and passed.

Mr. ATTLEE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has moved one Amendment and spoken in respect of another.

9.0 p.m

Sir J. NALL: This Amendment is of importance because it has relation to the next Amendment to be moved on behalf of the Government. If it is a question of demanding supplies it is of very great importance, because if the Board is to impose the condition that the whole of the requirements of that particular undertaker must be taken from the Board, some of the larger organisations in the country may be placed in a great difficulty, and may, in fact, be penalised by the price they have to pay. Where an undertaking has a series of stations inter-connected into a common system and the Board come along and select one station, and the Board is to say, "We will only supply you on condition that you take the whole of your supply from us and close down
all your other stations," great dislocation will result. I do not think, from what I. have heard outside, that that is the intention, but it is a possibility under the Bill as it is drawn. This Sub-section (3) provides that, if an authorised undertaker owns a generating station which is not a selected station, and demands a supply from the Board, he can be required by the Board to take the whole of his supply from them. What is the intention in administering this Clause as it is proposed to be amended? Clearly, the owner of a selected station will demand a supply, and because he is also the owner of a non-selected station, he ought not to be penalised, and ought not to have the whole of his system dislocated because of this provision. I think it would assist in the consideration of this particular series of Amendments if the Government would at this stage give some further explanation how they expect this to work, before we can really decide which Amendment ought to be adopted.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. JAMES BROWN: On a point of Order. There is an Amendment in my name on the Paper in page 12, line 18, at the end, to insert the words
 "(d) supply electricity within the area of supply of the Ayrshire Electricity Board without the consent of that Board.
I have been sitting patiently, waiting to speak on that Amendment, and it has not been called.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: It would not be strictly in order to go back on an Amendment which has been already passed over. The Amendment to which the hon. Member refers has not been selected, and it is not customary to give a reason why an Amendment has not been selected. As the hon. Member has raised a point of Order, I would explain that this Amendment deals with a particular area. If we were to deal with all the different areas which the Bill may affect, there would be no end to our discussion.

Mr. BROWN: This is a very important area.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: If we were to discuss specific areas, they would all be important areas.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 13, line 21, to leave out
from the word "Commissioners" to the word "to" in line 23, and to insert instead thereof the words
who if and so far as the ground of appeal is that the cost of taking the supply from the Board will not be less than the cost at which electricity is being produced by the undertakers shall, if so requested by the undertakers, refer that question.
This is an Amendment designed to give an option to any aggrieved undertaker as to what tribunal he shall go to. It is not desirable to provide an appeal from the Commissioners to an arbitrator, because that puts the Commissioners in a very invidious position, besides making for delay and expense. But we do not want to take away the right of going to an arbitrator and, as we did in an earlier Clause, we insert these words here to give the aggrieved undertaker the option of going to whichever body he desires, either to the Commissioners or an arbitrator, at his will.

Mr. ATTLEE: Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an explanation of the previous Amendment? We had this explanation on the last one.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am afraid I should be out of order if I tried to do that.

Mr. BALFOUR: This Amendment goes, I think, a little beyond what the Attorney-General has indicated. The words proposed to be left out are wide, whereas the words proposed to be inserted, so far as a ground of appeal is concerned, seem to me to restrict the rate. I think the Amendment goes beyond what the Attorney-General has suggested.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I hope not. I should like to explain that the Committee discussed at length the question of an appeal on financial questions and technical questions, and it was considered that appeals on technical questions were prima facie a matter for the Commissioners, and that appeals relating to financial matters should go before the arbitrator.

Mr. BALFOUR: I think it is somewhat too restricted. There may be questions within the scope of financial questions which should come within his jurisdiction. It is restricted to one single item of finance.
Amendment agreed to.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 13, line 41, at the end, to insert the words
(d) where any authorised undertakers owning a generating station not being a selected station demand a supply from any other undertakers, who own both a generating station which is a selected station and a generating station which is not a selected station, the Board shall not require the imposition of such a condition as aforesaid except with the consent of the last-mentioned undertakers 
The point is that where one authority sells current to another authority, which also owns a station which may not be a selected station, then under the terms of the Bill the Board can make the first authority impose a condition on the second authority to close its own non-selected station. That does not appear to be fair. The same point arose on the Amendment on which there was some little confusion just now. It is entirely beyond the intention of the Bill that where a supply is given through the Board owing to one station being selected that the Board, for no reason at all, should say that the non-selected station must shut down, which is the inevitable result of saying that the whole supply of that authority must be taken from the Board at the price laid down. It will deal very harshly in the case of certain local schemes. While the Board, obviously, must be protected against being abused as a kind of stand-by authority, and must be able to impose reasonable conditions, it is unnecessary that they should be able to make the first authority pass on these onerous conditions, which involve the closing down of subsidiary and non-selected stations.

Mr. BALFOUR: I beg to second the Amen dment.
I hope the Attorney-General will be able to do something to meet the case which has been put quite clearly by my hon. Friend. I understand there was some kind of promise made in Committee that the matter should be reconsidered on Report stage. I will add nothing to the arguments which have been advanced, they are quite clear, and a good case has been made out for the attention of the Government. I do not know whether the softening process is beginning and that we shall have better fortune in the later stages of this Bill. So far we have had to pursue quietly our arguments, and we
have done so without dividing the House, because that would be merely wasting time and would serve no good purpose. We have been, in the most friendly manner, endeavouring to assist our own Government to shape this Measure into a good Bill. If the Attorney-General has had time to look up the reference to what occurred in Committee, perhaps he will refresh our memories on this point.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I have looked up what happened in Committee, and I am glad to say that refusing to accept this Amendment is not inconsistent with anything that happened in Committee. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. J. Hudson) in Committee said:
If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will undertake to frame something more substantial we shall be satisfied.
And my answer was:
Of course, I will consider any representations which the hon. Member may make, although I cannot promise to change my view.

Mr. BALFOUR: I do not suggest that there was any pledge on the part of the Attorney-General.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am much obliged. It is right that the House should know that there was no promise. I have been very careful to endeavour to implement every promise I gave during the Committee stage, and I think the hon. Member will agree that I have fulfilled those promises. I have considered the representations made, and I am sorry to say that what I anticipated in Committee in June last has turned out to be the fact. I am not able to change the view I then adopted. The difficulty is that, unless some protection is incorporated in the Bill the Board would be used as a kind of stand-by by people who want to run their own stations for their own convenience. When they run short they would make use of the Board's supply and go back to their own supply When it suited them better. Obviously that is not the purpose for which the Board is constituted, and accordingly the Clause provides that the Board, if it is asked to supply undertakers who are again passing on the supply to somebody else, may impose, as a condition, that the whole of the supply must be taken from the Board. Then there is a provision that the Board is not
to impose or require such a condition unless satisfied that the cost for a period of not less than seven years in future of the Board's supply shall be less than the cost at which electricity is being produced at the generating station of the undertakers or sub-contractors. If the undertakers do not agree with the view of the Board, then, under proviso (b), they have a right of appeal on any question of cost to the arbitrator, and on any technical matters to the Electricity Commissioners. The Ministry feel that these protections are sufficient and that it would not be practicable or reasonable to go further than we have already gone in protecting the position, having regard to the importance of ensuring that the Board shall not be used as a mere convenience by people who want to run their own stations.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 11.—(Tariff for electricity supplied directly by Board.)

Amendment made: In page 14, line 11, leave out the words "demanding such a supply."—[The Attorney-General.]

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 14, line 14, to leave out the words "approved by," and to insert instead thereof the words "determined by an order of."
If exception is taken to the proposals of the Minister an opportunity is given to any people who wish to be heard of being able to claim that they be heard. I do not think this could lead to any inconvenience.

Mr. SANDEMAN: I beg to second the Amendment.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: This is an Amendment which we cannot accept. The effect of it will be that, instead of the tariff having to be fixed for a term of years to be approved by the Electricity Commissioners, the Commissioners would have to make an order which, by virtue of the 1919 Act, would have to come before Parliament, and would need to have a Resolution of both Houses for its approval. We have deliberately tried to get on with the working of the scheme and the preparing of tariffs and other matters, and are leaving to the Electricity Commissioners the same power here that they had already under the Act of 1922 with re-
gard to charges to be made by joint authorities—to be found in Section 18 of that Act—and we see no reason, except the reason which is so vigorously disclaimed, of distrust of the Electricity Commissioners, why they should not be allowed to have the same power.

Amendment negatived.

Sir J. NALL: I beg to move, in page 14, line 35, to leave out Sub-section (3), and to insert instead thereof the words
(3) The tariff fixed under this Section shall be adjusted for each electricity district constituted under Section five of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, according to the respective costs to the Board of the production and transmission of electricity within the district.
The object of this Amendment is to safeguard and ensure one of those principles which have been recommended from several quarters, and which were particularly presented to the Government by the Association of Chambers of Commerce, that is to say, that a developing industrial area shall not carry the burden of helping some unprofitable activities of the Board or the losses incurred in the developing of more backward districts. This is regarded as of very great importance in the industrial areas. Particular representations have been made to a number of Members of the House by the South-East Lancashire Advisory Board. I believe that that Board, or its representative, have had an opportunity of placing their very forceful arguments before either the Minister or the Department, with what result I do not know. This matter is of vital importance to the industrial areas of the country where an efficient system is already in existence. In the case of South-East Lancashire 58.9 per cent. of the generating stations are in the higher classes, as against 25.7 per cent. for the whole of the country. Of the whole output in that district over 87.25 per cent. is generated at stations which are already interconnected—I ask the House to bear that in mind—to render mutual assistance to each other and to effect whatever economies are possible. It is one of the most completely covered districts in the country as regards distribution. On any basis of comparison the standard is high. The units sold in that district already average 250 per head, against the quoted figure of 117 units per head for the whole country.
The fear is expressed in that locality, as in other industrial localities, that the tariff which may be charged under the calculation of prices in Clause 7, may in certain circumstances, notwithstanding the safeguarding in Clause 13 about the limiting of prices, in future years be higher than would be the case if the present local development were allowed to continue unfettered. It is perfectly true that there is provision in Clause 13 which says that the owners of selected stations shall be supplied by the Board at no greater cost than the owners of the station would have incurred had they continued to run the station on their own account, so that they cannot charge them more. But in districts of this kind, certain economies continue to arise through inter-connection, and so on, and indeed the Board itself in some districts may be able by comparatively small expenditure on transmission mains, and inter-linking, and so on, be able to achieve economies in some other districts which will reduce the local cost.
In South-East Lancashire there is very little for the Board to do, but in some other districts there is a very different picture. Each of those districts, which take a separate entity for the purposes of the calculation, will show different costs. Quite obviously they will show much smaller costs than will be the case in districts where the development is small or at present non-existent or where the Board have to set out almost de novo to create a generating and transmission organisation. It cannot be fair that the industrial areas of the country should be called upon to carry a share of the Board's activities in some other very remote parts of the country. These industrial areas and districts constituted under the Act either at present form convenient zones for schemes under the Bill or they can be adjusted so that they will be convenient zones. Where, as the result of the activities of the existing undertakings or the co-operation which has arisen from the constitution of the Joint Advisory Board, there has resulted development ahead of other parts of the country, it is really not fair that those areas should be called upon to shoulder some of the burdens in relation to the backward parts of the country. If the Board is able to function with all the economies claimed for it, one would sup-
pose it is going to develop the backward parts of the country much more economically and rapidly than any ordinary private or municipal enterprise is ever likely to do. Therefore, the Board should be the last kind of authority to be allowed to fall back upon the pockets of the prosperous areas, whereby to augment its funds for these lesser and more speculative adventures in new areas.
If the development of backward areas is not sound for the existing undertakings, one would suppose it would not be sound for the Board, but the Board, having access to the revenues of the prosperous areas, will be able to so pool its interests and spread its expenditure that it will indulge in development which may be to the advantage of the areas concerned, but which will be to the grave disadvantage of the areas which have to pay. So these efficient areas ask that the price they have to pay to the Board should be based upon the Board's expenses which can properly be regarded as being incurred in relation to that district. It is quite obvious that, say, the development of some part of southern England cannot really result in any economy to the north of England. I do not think it can be shown that the Board is going to carry out development in the east of England which will react favourably on the finances of the north-west or north-east parts. Therefore, why should these industrial areas run the risk—I am not saying that the Board is bound to do this—of the Board being able to charge them with some part of either the losses or the funds which are required to carry out these schemes in the backward areas?
I do not want to under-estimate in any way what has been conceded in Committee in the form of the guarantee under Clause 13 to owners of selected stations, but I do ask the House to consider this. Whereas the Committee said that by 1940, if these recommendations are carried out, they would be able to supply power at an average of one penny all over the country, I am sorry to say that some Government propagandists have spread that information in a form which may lead very many people to think they are going to get their household light at one penny per unit in 1940. That is a very popular fallacy in a good many parts of the country at the present time, that they are going to get it at a penny a
unit as a result of this scheme. I think, to do justice to the Weir Committee and those Who advised it, what they thought was that they would be able to supply power at one penny by 1940. The power companies say that under the ordinary existing process of development, they ought to be able to supply power at one halfpenny by 1940. In parts of the country it is already being supplied at that. In the industrial areas a great many consumers of industrial power, if they cannot get it at .5 or so, cannot use it at all. Yet under the present form of the Bill, those consumers run the risk of having to pay slightly more and others who at present are not able to use the power, because the price is not sufficiently low, may under the operation of this tariff proposal in the Section as it now stands never be able to avail themselves of the supply at a figure which they can afford, because the local undertaking may never get a sufficient reduction in price owing to the operation of the Board's tariff.
The whole point of this is that, though we have got certain guarantees under Clause 13 which prevent prices being raised, there are no guarantees to ensure that areas of the country, as distinct from owners of selected stations independently, will get the advantages which properly accrue from their own activities and their own development in their own areas. That is a very important point. The Bill as it is drafted says:
The tariff fixed under this Section may, if the Board think fit, be different for different areas.
That may operate the other way. They may say, "Well, here is a district with a comparatively low figure, and we are rather short on the general account. This district shall have a separate tariff and it is to be raised." A general tariff for the whole country, which one presumes will be about the average of the whole country, will obviously be higher than the tariff properly chargeable to the efficient districts. That is one of the unfortunate aspects of nationalisation which creeps into this Measure. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It cannot be called anything else if you are going to make the efficient areas pay for the non-efficient. If you can make them all efficient, then each one can stand on its own merits and my Amendment ought to be adopted.
But the ground of opposition to this Amendment is that this must be a national scheme for the whole country, and that unless it is carried out as a national scheme under public ownership it cannot function at all. Everyone knows that the public will never tolerate a private undertaking or municipality, or even a local joint authority, being allowed to charge the industrial North with the losses incurred on new schemes in the South. Therefore, the claim that a tariff ought to be adjusted to the actual costs incurred by the Board in each electricity district seems to be absolutely unanswerable. It is vital to the industrial undertakings of the country. I hope the Government, notwithstanding the concessions which have already been made, will ensure that in these efficient districts we shall in due course get the reduction which the development of those districts justifies to the consumer.

Mr. WIGGINS: I beg to second the Amendment.
I was a member of the South-East Lancashire Advisory Board for some 2½years and I know the time, trouble, skill and foresight which have been expended by that authority on this problem. We in that district are very largely concerned in this matter and do not wish that all this trouble should be thrown away and the benefit of all this skill and foresight taken from us to go to other parts of the country. The right hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill has all along said that its object is to give cheaper electricity. If there is one part of the country which needs cheaper electricity it is the South-East Lancashire area.

Mr. HARDIE: It needs more light.

Mr. WIGGINS: We want more light and more power. I do not hesitate to say that if this Bill does by any chance make electricity dearer in that area, it is going to kill the very purpose for which it is intended. Electricity at a penny a unit is of no use to the Lancashire cotton spinner. It has to be under a halfpenny as the ordinary normal price, otherwise it is better for him to develop it from his own steam engines. We have to compete with the world and we should be enabled to compete on fair terms. We want cheaper electricity and if we can be assured that
under the Bill, South-East Lancashire and contiguous areas will benefit in the future by the foresight we have exercised, we shall be perfectly satisfied, but until we are so satisfied, it is our duty to oppose this Bill and if possible prevent it passing. I am very much afraid that that is not possible, but I submit that this Amendment should have the consideration of the House.

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL: The speech of the Mover of the Amendment would have been cogent and, I think, irresistible had his object been to permit different tariffs to be fixed for different areas, but unhappily that is not his object because that is what is in the Bill already. His object is to make it compulsory, first, to fix different tariffs; secondly, to calculate them in a certain way and, thirdly, to fix them with regard to certain defined boundaries. The first result of the Amendment would be that no tariff would be fixed for a great part of the country because tariffs can only be fixed, according to this Amendment for the various districts set up under Section 5 of the Electricity Supply Act, 1919, and there are large parts of the country in which no such districts have been delimited. Secondly, it is by no means certain that the areas comprised in any particular scheme will be coterminous with the areas comprised in one particular district under the Electricity Act. If they happen not to be co-terminous then we shall be faced with the extraordinary difficulty from the practical point of view of dividing up different parts of the same scheme and making different calculations and having different tariffs in parts of the country which are served by the same generating station and form part of the same area under the scheme. In fact, the tariff may be different for different areas, and there is every intention that where there are different costs there shall be different charges. This Bill, as we have been reminded by its opponents, is not intended to be a temporary but a permanent Measure. We hope in the ultimate future, as the country is more and more linked up and interconnected, it may gradually be possible to equalise the tariffs. For a long time, no doubt, the tariffs in some of the more efficient areas will be lower than the tariffs in less effi-
cient areas. That will be so until the less efficient areas are improved up to the higher standard. The Bill, as framed, foresees that necessity and permits the Board to fix different tariffs, and the only effect of this Amendment would be to compel the Board to fix tariffs according to particular districts which in many cases are non-existent, and to deprive the Board of a discretion which, if they are the type of Board we all expect them to be, can be safely entrusted to them.

Amendment negatived.

CLAUSE 12.—(Price of indirect supply in bulk.)

Mr. GERALD HURST: I beg to move, in page 14, line 42, after the word "company," to insert the words
or any canal, inland navigation, dock, or harbour undertakers.
The purpose of the Clause as it stands is to enable railway companies to obtain indirect supply in bulk at what is practically cost price. Railway companies have been singled out for this privilege and the purpose of the Amendment, which has been put down at the desire of the Manchester Ship Canal Company, is to give the same privilege to any canal, inland navigation, dock or harbour undertaker. There seem to be two justifications for the Amendment. First, it is difficult to see any reason why this privilege should be given to railway companies and denied to other undertakers carrying on competitive work of the same character. Secondly, I presume the object of this concession to railway companies is to enable them to lower their freight charges. That, no doubt, is a good aim but it applies equally to a canal company to which cheap electric haulage is at least as important as it is to a railway company. On those two grounds, my submission is that there is no reason whatever for differentiating between the two types of transport, and with a view to securing justice for another type of undertaking which carries on precisely the same work as the railway companies, I beg to move this Amendment.

Mr. RADFORD: I beg to second the Amendment.
I contend that the justification for giving this concession to dock and
harbour authorities is even greater than for giving it to railway companies, because the railway companies are in most cases limited liability concerns, distributing profits and dividends, whereas most of the harbour authorities do not distribute any money in dividends, and any concession they may get in respect of the cost of their electrical power is simply for the benefit of the reduction of the working expenses of those harbour authorities, and cheapens the handling of goods to the general benefit of British trade.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon): I am sorry to have to resist the endeavour of my hon. Friend to obtain a concession for the harbour and dock authorities. The House will appreciate that the function of the Board is not with individuals or companies or with anybody except authorised undertakings, but in Clause 12 we have included railway companies, and consequently I think it is only right that we should justify our reason for putting the railway companies in a very special place. It is the desire of every one in the country to see our railways electrified as much as possible. The railway companies have always taken a very independent view when considering taking current for electrification, and in many cases in the past they have taken the line that they would not electrify at all unless they could have their own generating stations. The power they consume is very large, and it is a particular load which is of great advantage in coming upon the ordinary authorised undertakers. They have a load factor of about 30 per cent., which would enable undertakers, if they had that load, to produce current at a very low price. The Electricity Commissioners have power to stop the building of new stations or to stop extensions, and they have in the past done their best always to prevent the building of a station which would be segregated entirely for traction purposes. Consequently, the railway companies have in a sense a claim that they should be put in a special position relative to the supply of electricity from the Board. It is for that reason that we have thought it wise, in order to encourage electrification for the benefit of railways and the
ordinary consumer, that the railways should be put in that particular position. If we start down the slippery path of including other commercial undertakings, canals, docks, and so on, we shall have the claims of big works, and we shall then no doubt be a State trading concern, and not merely trading with authorised undertakings.

Lieut.-Commander ASTBURY: I am very pleased indeed to hear that the Government intend to resist this Amendment. It is all very well for the Manchester Ship Canal to seek preferential rates over the smaller manufacturers and householders of the district. We have got a large super-station at Salford, erected at a cost of £1,500,000, and if this Amendment were carried, it would mean that the Ship Canal would get a cheaper supply from the Board, which would give them a preferential rate over the manufacturers and small householders of the district. Therefore, on behalf of the ratepayers and the manufacturers, I am very pleased that the Government are not accepting this Amendment.
Amendment negatived.

Sir JAMES GRANT: On a point of Order. Is it possible for me to move the Amendment standing in my name, which is on the Paper immediately before the Amendment just disposed of—in page 14, line 42, after the word "company," to insert the words "or tramway company"?

Mr. SPEAKER: No, we cannot go back. I took the decision of the House yesterday on a similar question.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: I beg to move, in page 15, line 11, to leave out from the word "that" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words
where the supply to such other authorized undertakers or railway company is given in pursuance of a contract entered into before the passing of this Act, either party to the contract may require a revision thereof, and thereupon such contract shall be revised by agreement between the parties thereto or, failing such agreement, by arbitration, and subject to such revision the contract shall continue for the period for which it was made.
The last Amendment was to grant certain privileges or benefits that may accrue as a result of this Bill to canals, docks, and harbour undertakings, and it seems to me that that Amendment
rather implied that certain advantages were bound to accrue when the full application of this Bill is felt in the country. That being the case, my Amendment has for its object the granting of permission for anybody to change the terms of their contract after a period, on the application of either one of the two parties concerned in the contract, so that the advantages under this Bill, should there be any, can be evenly distributed among those people who have had sufficient foresight to make lengthy contracts. The solitary argument used by the Attorney-General in Committee against this proposal was that he did not think we ought to attempt to tamper with contracts that had been made by people with their eyes wide open. We submitted on that occasion, and we repeat to-day, that it is merely penalising any local authority, for instance, which happened to have the foresight, for the purpose of securing a supply of electricity for industrial undertakings in their area, to make a lengthy contract, that now, because they had that foresight and made suitable arrangements over a long period, they should be deprived for the next 20 years, perhaps, of any benefits that may accrue as a result of this Bill. That is totally unfair. What are the terms of this Bill? Some £33,000,000 of public money may be expended in the co-ordinating of schemes and the general preparation of a comprehensive reorganisation of electricity supply, and if public money is to be provided, it seems to me that the benefits ought to be evenly distributed and that those areas which are receiving a supply of electricity under a long-dated contract, if the price is likely to be reduced, ought to be permitted at the end of a period to call for a revision, which would be determined by the arbitrator referred to in the Amendment.
The question of sanctity of contract scarcely enters into this Amendment. It is not a question of breaking contracts. Here is a new scheme which a few years ago no local authority could have foreseen. Each authority will have to pay its own proportion towards any capital outlay, and to that extent each authority ought to be permitted to receive its share of any advantages that may accrue. It does seem to me that a public company which is in business exclusively
for profit, having made a contract with a local authority for a bulk supply of electricity for 10, 15 or 20 years, if it is to receive any benefit as a result of this national organisation, it ought not to complain if its customers expect to receive some portion of the benefit that will accrue as a result of the application of this Bill. Therefore, I suggest it is not a question of breaking contracts in the ordinary sense. It is a question of distributing equally any advantages under a national Bill, which can only be made possible as the result of the expenditure of large sums of national money, and to that extent each district will be equally entitled to share in any benefits there may be.
The Attorney-General in Committee was in some measure of doubt as to whether he should resist this Amendment. Although his first mind was to allow the Committee to have a free vote on the question, on the whole he felt that, since contracts ought not, except in very extreme cases, to be disturbed, it was better to support his own Amendment, but the hesitation in his mind at least compelled us to persist in our proposal, and that is why the Amendment is now being moved. I hope the Mover and Seconder of the last Amendment, and those who usually speak for municipalities, those who desire to see fair play all round, those who have eulogised municipalities for their wonderfully efficient schemes, those who have proclaimed that the municipal authorities have looked far into the distance and made ample arrangements, not only for domestic, but for industrial purposes, will support this Amendment. Many Members who sit opposite, I believe, also were supporters of this Amendment in Committee. We expect that they and their friends will support us this evening, and I hope the Minister will by this time have changed his mind, will have seen the equity of this proposal and will be willing to accept it.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to second the Amendment.
10.0 P.M.
I want to point out, first of all, that this Amendment is not a question concerning either company interests against municipal interests, or municipal interests against company interests. It is simply a matter between the givers and receivers of bulk supply. You have contracts made
to give and receive bulk supplies, and those contracts may arise in various circumstances. What has been one of the commonest reasons for taking bulk supplies in late years has been the action of the Electricity Commissioners. In pursuance of their policy—the right policy, I think—of not encouraging the extension of uneconomic stations, in many cases they have forbidden authorised undertakers to extend their stations, and have said, "You must try to get a bulk supply." In many cases, there has been only one possible source of supply, and the authorised undertakers, whether company or municipal, have been practically in the hands of the sole generating authority. They have, therefore, to fix up contracts, and perhaps they cannot get a contract fixed except for a considerable term of years. The ordinary bulk supply contract generally does have a clause contemplating revision in certain circumstances, but I do not think it contemplates a revision for the case which arises under this Bill, that is, that the giver of the bulk supply is receiving a specially cheap supply owing in the operation of this Bill, and I think it would be unfair that where a contract has been fixed up in such a case as this a case, really, of force majeure—that for a long period of years those people taking the bulk supply, should have to pay the original price, although the undertaking giving a bulk supply is receiving the full benefits of the Bill.
When this matter was discussed upstairs, the point was made that we should be upsetting the sanctity of contracts, and so forth. In a Bill of this nature, you cannot help affecting contracts of one sort or another, and the relationship between the people concerned. But I do not think there is anything seriously dangerous in this upsetting of contracts here. What is proposed here is that the conditions for a bulk supply should be subject to a revision, that the case should go to an arbitrator to see whether, as a fact, those people who have entered into this contract are not entitled to some other terms. I am not at all concerned to see that this should be a one-sided contract. If, as is not generally anticipated by those in charge of this Bill, but is anticipated, I gather, by some of their supporters, the price of electricity is going
up and not down as a result of this Bill, and that even then persons are forced to take a supply, then I agree the terms should be revised. The authority with which I am connected is not an authority taking a bulk supply, but is an authority which gives a bulk supply, and, therefore, my own authority would suffer in the almost unthinkable circumstances of the Board being able to supply electricity cheaper than we can produce it ourselves. But I do submit there is a clear case here, and it would be a mistake if people of this country who happened to be served by authorised undertakers, who by circumstances, in many cases forced on them, have had to enter into disadvantageous contracts should be cut out from all the benefits of cheap supply provided by the working of the Bill.

Colonel ASHLEY: An Amendment in practically the same terms as this was moved upstairs by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. T. Williams) in a long speech, which, to a certain extent, was convincing. But he said that the learned Attorney-General had some measure of doubt as to what his course would be. I do not think that is quite a fair way of putting the matter. I think it was that the learned Attorney-General had very strong predilections in favour of maintaining contracts, and he listened to the hon. Member and his friends to see whether they advanced any overwhelming arguments to induce him to agree to tearing up contracts. In the end, my right hon. Friend was not convinced, and, as the hon. Gentleman will recollect, the proposal was defeated by some 31 votes to seven.
An argument put forward in favour of the Amendment was that if we do not do something, the giving undertaker will get a big advantage, and it is not fair that he should have that advantage. I would remind the House that, under Clause 29 a power company has to submit to a revision of maximum prices, that under Clause 30 a sliding scale is imposed upon it, and that under the Fifth Schedule there is a revision of the revenue which may be obtained by a municipality. Therefore there are, with regard to all giving undertakers, conditions in the Bill to prevent any undue profit being made by these companies out of any circumstances such as those. [An HON. MEMBER: "Will it apply in the case of a contract?"] Certainly.
But I do not base my main argument on that; I base my argument on this, that unless it can be proved undoubtedly and clearly that a serious injustice will be done to anybody, it is most inadvisable to tear up or break a contract. These contracts have been made with the full knowledge of the people who entered into them; in many cases they have periods of revision, and the Government is clearly of opinion that the overwhelming balance of advantage is to maintain the sanctity of contract.

Mr. KELLY: I should not have risen but for the suggestion of the Minister of Transport that this Amendment means the tearing up of contracts. Surely the opportunity given by this Amendment for a revision of whatever is the contract, which has to be mutual, cannot be referred to as a tearing up of a contract. It is really carrying the point too far and endeavouring to create prejudice against the Amendment. We are asking that in the event of such a change coming by reason of this supply—a national supply, but not a nationalised supply in the sense that we understand it—that in the event of conditions showing an enormous surplus, the people should have an opportunity of revising the prices they had agreed on—prices arranged by people who had no knowledge that you were going to bring forward such a Measure as this to-night. Surely that is a businesslike and safe proposition.

Mr. HARDIE: This part of the Clause is another illustration of the lack of confidence on the part of the Government in their own Bill. I would have thought that if a Government thought this Bill was going to give an immediate cheap supply of electricity to the country, this Clause would not have appeared in it with the words in it: "Provided that this Section shall not affect the price charged." Does that mean that there is going to be a reduction in price? Why do they resist an Amendment that would bring into immediate action the relief brought about in industry by the reduction in price? If the Bill means anything at all in reduction of price, it means its immediate application. Why then should people who have made contracts prior to the passing of this Bill—and the Bill proves to be what the Government claims and a reduction in
price takes place—why should not that find its way into business and have immediate effect in reducing the price of articles produced? I would ask the Attorney-General to explain to us why this should be retained, and why the Government should resist the Amendment suggested in view of the claims made for the Bill. If it is going to do something to cheapen electricity why have they not the confidence to put that into the Bill? The Attorney-General had to admit in cross-examination that everything was purely speculative in this connection. In fact, I think the word he used was hypothetical—that we could not tell until this thing was on a working basis whether we were going to have an increase or decrease in price. But here you have a definite statement made in this Section which proves that the Government has no confidence in the Bill. If the Government believes it is going to be a means of cheapening electricity why do not they accept the Amendment and give the public the right to have the benefit immediately?

Mr. PALING: I would like to stress the point in connection with the question I asked the Minister of Transport. Does he mean to indicate to the House that in spite of these words, "Provided that this Section shall not affect the price charged for any supply of electricity given in pursuance of a contract made before the passing of this Act," that there are ways and means contained in this Bill of the price of electricity being lessened to people included in contracts of this description? His answer seemed to indicate that there were ways of doing it. If there are not, I should like to say that this is a very one-sided thing indeed. It is begging the question to say that these are contracts which were made by the people with their eyes open. Here is the Government doing something on a national scale intending to benefit the whole of the consumers of electricity, but here are these people with a contract that might have to run five, 10 or 15 years in the future, and they will have to be penalised because they did not know what the Government was going to do. If electricity is going to be cheapened it has got to be cheapened at the expense of the whole community. Where people have made a contract apparently this is not going to apply. I would like an
assurance from the Minister of Transport that these people will have an opportunity of benefiting if electricity is cheapened.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: Might we press the Minister of Transport to amplify the statement he made when he drew our attention to Clauses 30 and 39, and said that if a reduction took place these people would secure the benefit.

Colonel ASHLEY: They would not get much benefit from a reduction, because they have the sliding scale.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Then the right hon. Gentleman does not deny that people who have made a long-term contract will not get any benefit from the Bill?

Sir J. NALL: I wish to add only a word or two. There are a number of authorities who are in receipt of a supply of electricity under contract, and they are

apprehensive because they feel that the undertaking from which they get the supply will be able, under this Amendment, to ask for an increase in price. Undertakings in that position are just as apprehensive of the Amendment as undertakings which furnish the supply and think they may lose a contract. Hon. Members opposite should not run away with the idea that, one way or another, every benefit resulting from this Amendment will be enjoyed by consuming authorities. As I say, there are quite a number receiving supplies from other authorities who fear their interests will be prejudiced if this Amendment be passed.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 217 Noes, 93.

Division No. 452.]
AYES.
[10.16 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Hilton, Cecil


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Cunliffe, Sir Herbert
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Ainsworth, Major Charles
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hopkins, J. W. W.


Albery, Irving James
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)
Hore-Belisha, Leslie


Allen, J. Sandeman (L'pool, W. Derby)
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.
Dawson, Sir Phillip
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n)


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hume, Sir G. H.


Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)
Duckworth, John
Hurd, Percy A.


Astor, Viscountess
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hurst, Gerald B.


Atholl, Duchess of
Elliot, Major Walter E.
Hutchison, G. A. Clark (Midl'n & P'bl's)


Atkinson, C.
Elveden, Viscount
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrose)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
England, Colonel A.
Iliffe, Sir Edward M.


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Barclay-Harvey, C. M.
Everard, W. Lindsay
Jacob, A. E.


Barnett, Major Sir Richard
Fairfax, Captain J. G.
Jephcott, A. R.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Fanshawe, Commander G. D.
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington).


Bennett, A. J.
Fenby, T. D.
Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)


Bethel, A.
Fermoy, Lord
Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William


Birchall, Major J. Dearman
Fielden, E. B.
Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)


Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)
Finburgh, S.
Kindersley, Major G. M.


Blundell, F. N.
Ford, Sir P. J.
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Boothby, R. J. G.
Forestier-Walker, Sir L.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Forrest, W.
Knox, Sir Alfred


Braithwaite, A. N.
Foster, Sir Harry S.
Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.


Briggs, J. Harold
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.
Little, Dr. E. Graham


Briscoe, Richard George
Fromartle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Locker- Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham
Looker, Herbert William


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Lord, Walter Greaves


Bullock, Captain M.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Lougher, L.


Burman, J. B.
Grace, John
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere


Burton, Colonel H. W.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman


Butler, Sir Geoffrey
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John
MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen


Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)


Campbell, E. T.
Gunston, Captain D. W.
Macdonald, R. (Glasgow, Cathcart)


Cassels, J. D.
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Macintyre, Ian


Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
McLean, Major A.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Harrison, G. J. C.
Macmillan, Captain H.


Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Hartington, Marquess of
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm


Christie, J. A.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John


Clayton, G. C.
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Macquisten, F. A.


Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Hawke, John Anthony
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel


Colfox, Major William Phillips
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn


Conway, Sir W. Martin
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Merriman, F. B


Cooper, A. Duff
Henderson, Lieut.-Col. V. L. (Bootie)
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M


Cope, Major William
Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.


Courtauld, Major J. S
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Murchison, C. K.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington, N.)
Herbert, S. (York, N. R., Scar. & Wh'by)
Nall, Colonel Sir Joseph


Crawfurd, H. E.
Hills, Major John Waller
Neville, R. J.


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Rye, F. G.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Waddington, R.


Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Nuttall, Ellis
Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.


O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sandon, Lord
Warrender, Sir Victor


Oman, Sir Charles William C.
Scott, Sir Leslie (Liverp'l, Exchange)
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Shaw, Lt. Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W)
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)
Wells, S. R.


Peto, G. (Somerset, Frame)
Skelton, A. N.
Wiggins, William Martin


Pilcher, G.
Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)


Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Assheton
Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,'C.)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Preston, William
Smithers, Waldron
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Price, Major C. W. M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George


Radford, E. A.
Stanley, Col. Hon. G. F. (Will'sden, E.)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Raine, W.
Stanley Lord (Fylde)
Wise, Sir Fredric


Ramsden, E.
Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland)
Withers, John James


Rees, Sir Beddoe
Storry-Deans, R.
Womersley, W. J.


Remer, J. R.
Streatfield, Captain S. R.
Wood, B. C. (Somerset, Bridgwater)


Rentoul, G. S.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wood, Sir H. K. (Woolwich, West)


Rice, Sir Frederick
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, S.)
Young, Rt. Hon. Hilton (Norwich)


Roberts, E. H. G (Flint)
Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell



Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)
Tinne, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Ropner, Major L.
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Captain Margesson and Captain


Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Bowyer


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hardie, George D.
Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)


Attlee, Clement Richard
Hayday, Arthur
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Baker, Walter
Hayes, John Henry
Scrymgeour, E.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Scurr, John


Barnes, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Sexton, James


Barr, J.
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Shepherd, Arthur Lewis


Batey, Joseph
John, William (Rhondda, West)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bromfield, William
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sitch, Charles H.


Bromley, J.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Slesser, Sir Henry H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Kelly, W. T.
Smillie, Robert


Buchanan, G.
Kennedy, T.
Smith, Rennie (Penistone)


Cape, Thomas
Kirkwood, D.
Snowden, Rt. Hon, Philip


Charleton, H. C.
Lansbury, George
Stamford, T. W.


Clowes, S.
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Lee, F.
Suillvan, Joseph


Compton, Joseph
Lowth, T.
Sutton, J. E.


Dalton, Hugh
Lunn, William
Taylor, R A.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
MacLaren, Andrew
Thomson, Trevelyan (Middlesbro, W.)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davison, J. E. (Smethwick)
March, S.
Varley, Frank B.


Day, Colonel Harry
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Viant, S. P.


Duncan, C
Montague, Frederick
Walsh, Rt. Hon. Stephen


Gibbins, Joseph
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Watson W. M. (Dunfermline)


Gillett, George M.
Murnin, H.
Welsh, J. C.


Gosling, Harry
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Oliver, George Harold
Windsor, Walter


Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Paling, W.



Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)



Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Potts, John S.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Groves, T.
Purcell, A. A.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. B.


Grundy, T. W.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Smith.


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Riley, Ben



Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 13.—(Limitation on price to be charged to owners of selected stations.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 15, line 26, after the word "which," to insert the words "in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners."
I do not think this Amendment requires very much explanation. Clause 13 places a limitation upon the price to be charged to the owners of selected stations, and the limitation is conditional upon proof to the satisfaction of the
Electricity Commissioners that the cost of taking the supply from the Board exceeds the cost which would be incurred if the authorised undertakers themselves generated a like quantity of electricity. The concluding words of the Clause are:
the charges by the Board to those undertakers for the supplies of electricity furnished to them shall be so adjusted that the amount charged in that year does not exceed the cost which the undertakers would have incurred in themselves generating the electricity.
We put in the provision as to proof to the satisfaction of the Electricity Commissioners that the cost is greater, and
we want merely to correlate with it the concluding words of the Clause by providing that the amount shall not exceed the cost which in the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners the authorised undertakers would have incurred.

Sir J. NALL: I want to say one word on this Amendment, because in Committee the Government set great store by the safeguards which Clause 13 gave to owners of selected stations. As the Clause is drafted, this question of cost must be proved as a matter of fact. The Amendment which my right hon. Friend has just moved—without, I think, any adequate warning to those concerned, except in the ordinary way of notice on the Order Paper—whittles away the safeguard given in Clause 13, on the strength of which a great many owners of selected stations have been induced to believe that they had some sort of protection. Now, instead of relying on the proof of a fact, they are simply to depend upon the opinion of the Commissioners. The Commissioners may be a thoroughly sound body to advise on technical matters, but, if it was thought right in the first instance to give the owners of selected stations the guarantee supplied in the Clause as it is printed, on which they were assured that they would have protection if they could prove the fact—that they would have the right of access to the Courts, where they would get a thoroughly impartial and unprejudiced decision—I earnestly suggest that it is rather going back on all the promises of guarantee and safeguard that were made in Committee apropos of the protection afforded by Clause 13 if at this stage we suddenly insert these words and to a large extent whittle away the protection which has been given.

Mr. BALFOUR: I should like to add a word in support of what my hon. Friend has said. I am sure the House will appreciate at once that it is quite wrong to leave a matter of this importance in the discretion of the Electricity Commissioners, who are one of the two interested parties concerned in the matter. I feel sure that my right hon. Friend will be doing the right thing if he allows this to stand on the proof of a matter of fact, and does not allow such an important matter to be dependent—because there is not even any method provided for the stating of a case—
merely upon an opinion expressed. As I think my right hon. Friend will agree, even though the opinion written down as the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners were contrary to fact, there is nothing in this Clause which would entitle people, whose interests had possibly been seriously damaged, to any remedy. If this Bill be analysed, it will be found that throughout it runs this same thread. You have a closed circuit consisting of a Board and Commissioners, with unlimited funds provided at the expense of the taxpayer. We have that cycle and we have here the security that if there is to be any question of doubt or any complaint made as to the price, the Commissioners are to decide. It is in no sense reflecting upon the particular Department. I am dealing merely with the matter of public policy that it is wrong, as a matter of public policy alone, that we should rely upon any one Department so deeply interested themselves in the scheme, which they, in the first instance, set up, and I think it will be found as a matter of prudence in our public life that it is not fair to impose upon the Electricity Commissioners the sole burden, if there is any dispute about the matter, of deciding it by expressing an opinion.

Mr. HERBERT: This Clause as drawn provided that the people concerned should not have to pay more than the actual cost which they would themselves have incurred in generating the electricity. That, of course, is a question of fact. Now we have this Amendment proposed by the Government, for what reason I do not know, in the last stage of the Bill. It is to decide that that particular question of cost shall be one which rests entirely in the decision of one of the parties to the contest. The Electricity Commissioners can correctly be described as one of the parties to the dispute, if there is a dispute. I do not know, and the Attorney-General has not told us, what is the reason of his introducing the Amendment, but I think members of the Bar will regard it as somewhat extraordinary that the leader of the Bar, with all its traditions, should be put, by some force which I do not know— [HON. MEMBERS: "Impossible!"] No doubt the Attorney-General will say whether that suggestion is correct.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: What my hon. Friend does not know I cannot tell the House, but that there is any force which compels me to do anything, except the fact that I am moving what is practically almost a drafting Amendment, in fact to reproduce in line 26 the same provision which is already in line 17, is quite untrue.

Mr. HERBERT: The Attorney-General I am sure, will acquit me of being responsible for the suggestion made from the opposite side. But the fact of a travesty of justice—I do not think that is too strong language—in an earlier part of the Bill is no excuse for trying to repeat it here. With some acquaintance with the Courts of the country, I regard it as a sad thing that, whatever the cause may be, whether of his own volition or on a suggestion from outside, the leader of the Bar should be put in the position of moving, for no reason that I can see—moving gratuitously—an Amendment to a Clause in his own Bill in order to put the decision on a question of great importance to the subject in the power of the opposite party to the dispute. Without giving any reasons whatever, the Attorney-General has proposed an Amendment which I suggest is contrary to the sense of justice. I can only hope that he will not press the Amendment. Unless he or his representative is prepared to give us some better reason for it, I do not think it is fair to the House for him to ask that the Amendment should be carried.

Sir F. HALL: I am astounded that the Attorney-General should suggest that this is a drafting Amendment. It simply comes to this, that the opinion of the Electricity Commissioners is to be taken as the deciding factor as to whether electricity can be generated at a certain price or whether it cannot. The Electricity Commissioners at the present time are not all expert engineers; they are qualified in various branches, some in finance. With the vast amount of work which they have to perform, they will not be able to keep themselves cognisant of all the great improvements that take place with regard to electrical engineering; notwithstanding, if an authorised undertaker is not satisfied with the cost, it is to rest with the Electricity Commissioners to say that in their opinion, without giving any reason whatsoever for
their opinion, the cost is so much. It is an extraordinary procedure. When this Clause was under discussion in Committee a vast amount of argument took place. It was not then proposed by the Attorney-General that the Electricity Commissioners should have the last word to say in regard to cost, and I am surprised that practically at the eleventh hour we should be asked to swallow an Amendment of this description. [HON. MEMBERS "Vote against it!"] I will if I can get anyone to tell with me.
Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."
The House proceeded to a Division:
Major Cope and Captain Margesson were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but, there being no Members willing to act as Tellers for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

CLAUSE 14 (Power to close generating stations in certain events).

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 15, line 28, to leave out the words "in any year."
This is a purely drafting Amendment as the words "in any year" have now become meaningless.
Amendment agreed to.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I beg to move, in page 15, line 32, to leave out the words, "the whole quantity of electrcity required for their undertaking," and to insert instead thereof the words
such quantity of electricity as the undertakers would require for the purposes of their undertaking if the station were closed, and undertake to give such a supply for a period of not less than seven years.
This is really to correct a mistake which occurred in Committee. This Clause provides power to close uneconomic generating stations in certain cases. In Committee it was pointed out by the hon. Member for Limehouse (Mr. Attlee) that there was no period over which the Board bound itself to supply at any given price, and it was suggested by him that it should be a period of not less than seven years. That was a view which commended itself to the Committee and the Government, and we were willing to accept an Amendment on those lines. Unfortunately, by some misunderstanding, the Amendment was not moved in Committee, and the Government
have now framed the Amendment which meets the point raised, and proposes that the power to close shall not exist unless the Board are willing to undertake to supply such a quantity of electricity as the undertakers shall require for the purpose of their undertaking if the station were closed, and give such a supply for a period of not less than seven years. There is a slight alteration from the original Amendment, because under that, there might have been an obligation to supply what the undertakers were getting from some other supply. The Amendment is designed to protect the owners of generating stations and to carry out the promise given during the Committee stage.

Mr. ATTLEE: This Amendment was to have been made at the end of the Clause when the Bill was in Committee, but the Committee were led away by the eloquence of the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Lieut.-Colonel Sir F. Hall) and the Amendment was forgotten. I have put on the Paper some Amendments designed to strengthen the Clause, but on consideration I think that the present Amendment meets the point that I wished to raise, and I shall not move the Amendments standing in my name.

Mr. BALFOUR: The Amendment illustrates again the difficulty that this House must have in understanding the exact measure of the actions we are taking. I agree that on reading this Amendment without a somewhat detailed knowledge of these matters I should assume that it was a good Amendment, and in fact very little different from the Clause as it stands. But in fact what will happen will be this: An undertaker owns a station which at the present moment and with its present size is not operating efficiently. That station is in course of change. Many stations in the country at the present time are changing over from one steam pressure to another. Two-thirds of a station may be changed over, and one-third has still to be changed. When that one-third is changed the cost of production from that station will be very materially decreased.
In some cases it will be very nearly halved. [Interruption.] I do not want to burden the House with long and elaborate explanations, and I think hon. Members will agree that I have refrained from long and technical details which I might well have put before the House on a large number of Amendments. But I think it is only right, on an occasion such as this, to illustrate to the House on an odd occasion exactly the difficulties in which we find ourselves in settling matters of this kind.
There are local stations in course of change over, which will have facilities for an output double or treble the present output, and the cost of producing, when they get the station up to that larger output, will be so much reduced that theirs would be a good case for maintaining their own independent supply. Under this proposal they will be prohibited from doing it. Stations have been going through this period of change rapidly since 1922. The price is going down at all stations now. As the price comes down the demand goes up. The Electricity Commissioners know perfectly well that this sort of thing is going on at a rapid rate all over the country and that never has there been since 1922 such a rapid growth of electricity as now. They know it is not a question of proving to the people of this country that something has to be done to speed up the production of electricity. At the present moment it cannot be held up, except by legislation. The main point is that we are all interested in seeing if we can get a cheaper supply of electricity in this country, and it has never been proved that this ought to be done necessarily by closing down certain small stations. These stations to-day with the form of machinery available can in relatively small stations be developed—

Mr. SPEAKER: I fear the hon. Gentleman is making a general speech on a Bill. We are here on a particular Amendment with regard to the undertakers getting a supply for a period of not less than seven years. The time for a general debate is on Friday.

Mr. BALFOUR: With very great respect, Mr. Speaker, I think if you read the word in the Amendment, you will see we are dealing with the question of the amount that the undertakers may require for the purposes of their undertaking if the station were closed. The point I am raising is that of a station not being closed, but expanded to its normal limits, with the development of machinery at the present time. I am quite conscious it is extremely difficult to enter into a full explanation on any Amendment without having the appearance of straying beyond the Amendment. I will content myself with what I have said, namely, that the people concerned who understand these matters fully think that these points can be given effect to in a totally different manner than that proposed under the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir D. NEWTON: I beg to move, in page 15, line 33, to leave out the word "calculated," and to insert instead thereof the word "ascertained."
I understand the Attorney-General regards this as a drafting Amendment and is prepared to accept it.

Mr. LOOKER: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 36, after the word "undertakers" insert the words "of generating electricity at the station."

In page 15, line 42, after the word "undertakers" insert the words "at the station."—[The Attorney-General.]

Mr. HERBERT: I beg to move, in page 16, line 1, to leave out the word "calculated," and to insert instead thereof the word "ascertained."
The word "calculated" in the previous line has just been altered by the House to the word "ascertained." I suggest it might be well to move the Amendment here to alter the word "calculated" into "ascertained" in the same way as previously.

Amendment agreed to.

CLAUSE 15 (Compensation for deprivation of employment).

Colonel ASHLEY: I beg to move in page 16, line 40, to leave out the words "alteration in" and to insert instead thereof the words "restrictions imposed by the Board on."
This Amendment is in order to bring the Clause into harmony with Schedule 4 which uses the words "restrictions on the working," those words having been put in during the Committee stage. I may also mention that we propose to accept the Amendment to the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Ealing Sir H. Nield) to insert after the word "Board" the words "or by or under a scheme."
Question, "That the words 'alteration in' stand part of the Bill," put, and negatived.
Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

Mr. KELLY: I beg to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment to leave out the words "by the Board."
It appears that this stipulation will interfere with many of the officers in the matter of their compensation when consideration is being given to deprivation of employment. One finds in various parts of the Bill that restrictions may be imposed by people other than the Board. It lays down in one part that the Minister of Transport may impose restrictions and in another that the Commissioners may impose restrictions, and it is because of those portions of the Bill that I ask the Government not to press for all the words of the Amendment, but to be satisfied with the words "restrictions imposed on." That would enable those concerned to be adequately dealt with in the matter of compensation.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I beg to second the Amendment.

Colonel ASHLEY: In the moment that remains to me I wish to point out that everything is covered by what the Board does under the scheme, and I am sure that no one who is affected by the scheme will be cut out of any benefits because of the words which the hon. Member seeks to leave out. If it should
prove to be otherwise, we will go into the matter and have it made right in another place.

Mr. KELLY: I do not feel at all happy that these cases are covered.

Mr. RICHARDSON: I am not happy about it either.
It being Eleven of the Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.
Debate to be resumed To-morrow.
The remaining Government Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon, Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order of the House of the 27th September, proposed the Question, "That this House do now adjourn."

Adjourned accordingly at Two Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.